FBN 20210009543
The following person is doing business as: MC BODY CONTOURING 141 W FOOTHILL BLVD SUITE C UPLAND, CA 91786 MARMIA ENTERPRISES INC 15407 ROCKWELL AVENUE FONTANA, CA 92336
Mailing Address: 15407 ROCKWELL AVENUE FONTANA, CA 92336
The business is conducted by: A CORPORATION
State of Incorporation: CALIFORNIA C4785478SN
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: 9/03/2021
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ MARICEL DELA CUESTA CALILAO
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 09/21/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy D5511
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 10/01, 10/08, 10/15 & 10/22, 2021.

FBN 20210009748
The following person is doing business as: CHOSEN COFFEE COMPANY 1173 S CACTUS AVE #37 RIALTO, CA 92376: JULIAN J ESTRADA 1173 S CACTUS AVE #37 RIALTO, CA 92376
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ JULIAN J ESTRADA
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 09/03/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy I1327
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 10/01, 10/08, 10/15 & 10/22, 2021.

FBN 20210009264
The following person is doing business as: RADICAL 66 8401 COTTONWOOD AVE. APT #209 FONTANA, CA 92335: RADRAGE L.L.C. 8401 COTTONWOOD AVE. APT #209 FONTANA, CA 92335
The business is conducted by: A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY
Registered with the State of California: 202122910336
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ RASHAD HERD
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 09/03/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy D5511
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 10/01, 10/08, 10/15 & 10/22, 2021.
FBN 20210009567
The following person is doing business as: COLD STONE VICTORIA GARDENS 12451 NORTH MAINSTREET RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91739: ALL PROFIT ENTERPRISES LLC 12451 NORTH MAINSTREET RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91739
Mailing Address: 2783 ATHENS RIDGE DR HENDERSON, NEVADA 89052
The business is conducted by: A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY
Registered with the State of California: 201023810103
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: JANUARY 1, 2015
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ WESLEY KIM
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 09/21/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy D5511
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 10/01, 10/08, 10/15 & 10/22, 2021.

NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF: WALTER PHILLIP HALL
CASE NO. PROSB2100691
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of  WALTER PHILLIP HALL:
A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by JASON MARK HALL in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that JASON MARK HALL be appointed as personal representatives to administer the estate of the decedent.
THE PETITION requests authority to administer the estate under the Independent Administration of Estates Act. (This authority will allow the personal representative to take many actions without obtaining court approval. Before taking certain very important actions, however, the personal representative will be required to give notice to interested persons unless they have waived notice or consented to the proposed action.) The independent administration authority will be granted unless an interested person files an objection to the petition and shows good cause why the court should not grant the authority.
A hearing on the petition will be held in Dept. No. S-35 at 9:00 a.m. on OCTOBER 26, 2021 at Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, 247 West Third Street, San Bernardino, CA 92415, San Bernardino District.
IF YOU OBJECT to the granting of the petition, you should appear at the hearing and state your objections or file written objections with the court before the hearing. Your appearance may be in person or by your attorney.
IF YOU ARE A CREDITOR or a contingent creditor of the decedent, you must file your claim with the court and mail a copy to the personal representative appointed by the court within the later of either (1) four months from the date of first issuance of letters to a general personal representative, as defined in section 58(b) of the California Probate Code, or (2) 60 days from the date of mailing or personal delivery to you of a notice under Section 9052 of the California Probate Code.
Other California statutes and legal authority may affect your rights as a creditor. You may want to consult with an attorney knowledgeable in California law.
YOU MAY EXAMINE the file kept by the court. If you are a person interested in the estate, you may file with the court a Request for Special Notice (form DE-154) of the filing of an inventory and appraisal of estate assets or of any petition or account as provided in Probate Code section 1250. A Request for Special Notice form is available from the court clerk.
Attorney for the Petitioner: MICHAEL C. MADDUX, ESQ.
1894 COMMERCENTER WEST, SUITE 108
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92408
Telephone No: (909) 890-2350
Fax No: (909) 890-0106
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 10/08, 10/15 & 10/22, 2021.

NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF: CHRISTINA MARIA FERREIRA.
CASE NO. PROSB2100733
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of CHRISTINA MARIA FERREIRA:
A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by TANYA MARIE WASHINGTON and JONATHAN ANTHONY FERREIRA in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that TANYA MARIE WASHINGTON and JONATHAN ANTHONY FERREIRA be appointed as personal representatives to administer the estate of the decedent.
THE PETITION requests authority to administer the estate under the Independent Administration of Estates Act. (This authority will allow the personal representative to take many actions without obtaining court approval. Before taking certain very important actions, however, the personal representative will be required to give notice to interested persons unless they have waived notice or consented to the proposed action.) The independent administration authority will be granted unless an interested person files an objection to the petition and shows good cause why the court should not grant the authority.
A hearing on the petition will be held in Dept. No. S-35 at 9:00 a.m. on November 15, 2021 at Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, 247 West Third Street, San Bernardino, CA 92415, San Bernardino District.
IF YOU OBJECT to the granting of the petition, you should appear at the hearing and state your objections or file written objections with the court before the hearing. Your appearance may be in person or by your attorney.
IF YOU ARE A CREDITOR or a contingent creditor of the decedent, you must file your claim with the court and mail a copy to the personal representative appointed by the court within the later of either (1) four months from the date of first issuance of letters to a general personal representative, as defined in section 58(b) of the California Probate Code, or (2) 60 days from the date of mailing or personal delivery to you of a notice under Section 9052 of the California Probate Code.
Other California statutes and legal authority may affect your rights as a creditor. You may want to consult with an attorney knowledgeable in California law.
YOU MAY EXAMINE the file kept by the court. If you are a person interested in the estate, you may file with the court a Request for Special Notice (form DE-154) of the filing of an inventory and appraisal of estate assets or of any petition or account as provided in Probate Code section 1250. A Request for Special Notice form is available from the court clerk.
Attorney for the Petitioner: MICHAEL C. MADDUX, ESQ.
1894 COMMERCENTER WEST, SUITE 108
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92408
Telephone No: (909) 890-2350
Fax No: (909) 890-0106
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 10/08, 10/15 & 10/22, 2021.
NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF: WILLIAM H. COOPER.
CASE NO. PROSB2100717
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of WILLIAM H. COOPER:
A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by CHERYL L. COOPER in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that CHERYL L. COOPER be appointed as personal representatives to administer the estate of the decedent.
THE PETITION requests authority to administer the estate under the Independent Administration of Estates Act. (This authority will allow the personal representative to take many actions without obtaining court approval. Before taking certain very important actions, however, the personal representative will be required to give notice to interested persons unless they have waived notice or consented to the proposed action.) The independent administration authority will be granted unless an interested person files an objection to the petition and shows good cause why the court should not grant the authority.
A hearing on the petition will be held in Dept. No. S-37 at 9:00 a.m. on November 4, 2021 at Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, 247 West Third Street, San Bernardino, CA 92415, San Bernardino District.
IF YOU OBJECT to the granting of the petition, you should appear at the hearing and state your objections or file written objections with the court before the hearing. Your appearance may be in person or by your attorney.
IF YOU ARE A CREDITOR or a contingent creditor of the decedent, you must file your claim with the court and mail a copy to the personal representative appointed by the court within the later of either (1) four months from the date of first issuance of letters to a general personal representative, as defined in section 58(b) of the California Probate Code, or (2) 60 days from the date of mailing or personal delivery to you of a notice under Section 9052 of the California Probate Code.
Other California statutes and legal authority may affect your rights as a creditor. You may want to consult with an attorney knowledgeable in California law.
YOU MAY EXAMINE the file kept by the court. If you are a person interested in the estate, you may file with the court a Request for Special Notice (form DE-154) of the filing of an inventory and appraisal of estate assets or of any petition or account as provided in Probate Code section 1250. A Request for Special Notice form is available from the court clerk.
Attorney for the Petitioner: MICHAEL C. MADDUX, ESQ.
1894 COMMERCENTER WEST, SUITE 108
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92408
Telephone No: (909) 890-2350
Fax No: (909) 890-0106
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 10/08, 10/15 & 10/22, 2021.

NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF: VALTON BERISHA
CASE NO. PROPS2100320
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of VALTON BERISHA:
A Petition for Probate has been filed by BRIKENA BYTYQ in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO,
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that BRIKENA BYTYQ be appointed as personal representative to administer the estate of the decedent.
THE PETITION requests authority to administer the estate under the Independent Administration of Estates Act. (This authority will allow the personal representative to take many actions without obtaining court approval. Before taking certain very important actions, however, the personal representative will be required to give notice to interested persons unless they have waived notice or consented to the proposed action.) The independent administration authority will be granted unless an interested person files an objection to the petition and shows good cause why the court should not grant the authority.
A hearing on the petition will be held OCTOBER 29, 2021 2021 at 9:00 a.m. in Dept. No. S36 at Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, 247 West Third Street, San Bernardino, CA 92415, San Bernardino District.
March 3, 2021
Bridjae Houston, Deputy
IF YOU OBJECT to the granting of the petition, you should appear at the hearing and state your objections or file written objections with the court before the hearing. Your appearance may be in person or by your attorney.
IF YOU ARE A CREDITOR or a contingent creditor of the decedent, you must file your claim with the court and mail a copy to the personal representative appointed by the court within the later of either (1) four months from the date of first issuance of letters to a general personal representative, as defined in section 58(b) of the California Probate Code, or (2) 60 days from the date of mailing or personal delivery to you of a notice under Section 9052 of the California Probate Code.
Other California statutes and legal authority may affect your rights as a creditor. You may want to consult with an attorney knowledgeable in California law.
YOU MAY EXAMINE the file kept by the court. If you are a person interested in the estate, you may file with the court a Request for Special Notice (form DE-154) of the filing of an inventory and appraisal of estate assets or of any petition or account as provided in Probate Code section 1250. A Request for Special Notice form is available from the court clerk.
Filed: September 3, 2021
Attorney for Brikena Bytyq
R. SAM PRICE SBN 208603
PRICE LAW FIRM, APC
300 E STATE STREET SUITE 620
REDLANDS, CA 92373
(909) 328 7000
sam@pricelawfirm.com
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 10/08, 10/15 & 10/22, 2021.

NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF: NANCY ANN STERLING
CASE NO. PROSB2100699
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of NANCY ANN STERLING:
A Petition for Probate has been filed by JASAIRE ROE’SHELL COMEGER in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO,
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that JASAIRE ROE’SHELL COMEGER be appointed as personal representative to administer the estate of the decedent.
THE PETITION requests authority to administer the estate under the Independent Administration of Estates Act. (This authority will allow the personal representative to take many actions without obtaining court approval. Before taking certain very important actions, however, the personal representative will be required to give notice to interested persons unless they have waived notice or consented to the proposed action.) The independent administration authority will be granted unless an interested person files an objection to the petition and shows good cause why the court should not grant the authority.
A hearing on the petition will be held NOVEMBER 10, 2021 2021 at 9:00 a.m. in Dept. No. S37 at Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, 247 West Third Street, San Bernardino, CA 92415, San Bernardino District.
IF YOU OBJECT to the granting of the petition, you should appear at the hearing and state your objections or file written objections with the court before the hearing. Your appearance may be in person or by your attorney.
IF YOU ARE A CREDITOR or a contingent creditor of the decedent, you must file your claim with the court and mail a copy to the personal representative appointed by the court within the later of either (1) four months from the date of first issuance of letters to a general personal representative, as defined in section 58(b) of the California Probate Code, or (2) 60 days from the date of mailing or personal delivery to you of a notice under Section 9052 of the California Probate Code.
Other California statutes and legal authority may affect your rights as a creditor. You may want to consult with an attorney knowledgeable in California law.
YOU MAY EXAMINE the file kept by the court. If you are a person interested in the estate, you may file with the court a Request for Special Notice (form DE-154) of the filing of an inventory and appraisal of estate assets or of any petition or account as provided in Probate Code section 1250. A Request for Special Notice form is available from the court clerk.
Filed: September 3, 2021
Attorney for Jasaire Roe’shell Comeger
R. SAM PRICE SBN 208603
PRICE LAW FIRM, APC
300 E STATE STREET SUITE 620
REDLANDS, CA 92373
(909) 328 7000
sam@pricelawfirm.com
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 10/08, 10/15 & 10/22, 2021.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR CHANGE OF NAME CASE
NUMBER CIVSB2125667
TO  ALL INTERESTED PERSONS: Petitioner:  BRIAN GAZCON GUTIERREZ  filed with this court for a decree changing names as follows:
BRIAN GAZCON GUTIERREZ to  BRIAN GAZCON
THE COURT ORDERS that all persons interested in this matter appear before this court at the hearing indicated below to show cause, if any, why the petition for change of name should not be granted. Any person objecting to the name changes described above must file a written objection that includes the reasons for the objection at least two court days before the matter is scheduled to be heard and must appear at the hearing to show cause why the petition should not be granted. If no written objection is timely filed, the court may grant the petition without a hearing.
Notice of Hearing:
Date: NOVEMBER 16, 2021
Time: 9:00 AM
Department: S17
The address of the court is Superior Court of California,County of San Bernardino, 247 West Third Street, San Bernardino, CA 92415
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this order be published in the  San Bernardino County Sentinel in San Bernardino County California, once a week for four successive weeks prior to the date set for hearing of the petition.
Dated: 9/8/2021
Lynn M. Poncin
Judge of the Superior Court.
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 10/08, 10/15, 10/22 & 10/29, 2021.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR CHANGE OF NAME CASE
NUMBER CIVSB2122384
TO  ALL INTERESTED PERSONS: Petitioner:  ALEXIS NOUR KHALAF filed with this court for a decree changing names as follows:
ALEXIS NOUR KHALAF to  ALEXIS NOUR BOCANEGRA
THE COURT ORDERS that all persons interested in this matter appear before this court at the hearing indicated below to show cause, if any, why the petition for change of name should not be granted. Any person objecting to the name changes described above must file a written objection that includes the reasons for the objection at least two court days before the matter is scheduled to be heard and must appear at the hearing to show cause why the petition should not be granted. If no written objection is timely filed, the court may grant the petition without a hearing.
Notice of Hearing:
Date: NOVEMBER 4, 2021
Time: 9:00 AM
Department: S16
The address of the court is Superior Court of California,County of San Bernardino, 247 West Third Street, San Bernardino, CA 92415
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this order be published in the  San Bernardino County Sentinel in San Bernardino County California, once a week for four successive weeks prior to the date set for hearing of the petition.
Dated: 9/21/2021
Lynn M. Poncin
Judge of the Superior Court.
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 10/08, 10/15, 10/22 & 10/29, 2021.

NOTICE OF SALE OF REAL PROPERTY
[Probate Code Sec. 103OO]
Case No.: PROPS2100264
In Re: THE ESTATE OF FRED EDWARD CARLSON
Notice is given that Lilian Black and Ruth Dysart, as Personal Representatives of the
Estate of Fred Edward Carlson will set at private sale subject to confirmation by the Superior Court of San Bernardino, on or after November 10, 2021, at 9:30 a.m. at Superior Court of San Bernardino 247 W. Third Street, San Bernardino CA, Department S36P, the following real property of the Estate: 406 N. 6th Avenue, Upland, CA 91786.
The terms and conditions of sale are: All cash, the amount of the sale is $510,000.00. The required amount of the first overbid is $526,500.00. At least ten percent (l0%) of the amount bid must be paid with the offer, and the balance must be paid on close of escrow after confirmation of sale by the Court. Bids or offers for this property must be made to the Court at the time and date shown above.
The sale is subject to confirmation of the Court.
A hearing on the petition will be held NOVEMBER 10, 2021 2021 at 9:30 a.m. in Dept. No. S36 at Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, 247 West Third Street, San Bernardino, CA 92415, San Bernardino District.
S/ / Lilian Black, Personal Representative
S/ Ruth Dysart, Personal Representative
S/ James Lee, Esquire, Attorney for Lilian Black and Ruth Dysart
Dated: October 7, 2021
James Lee, Esq. SBN: 110838
LA W OFFICE OF MARC E. GROSSMAN
100 N. Euclid Avenue
Second Floor
Upland, CA 91786
Jim@wefight4you.com
Tel: (909)608-7426
Fax: (909)949-0119
Attorney for Lilian Black and Ruth Dysart
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 10/08, 10/15, 10/22 & 10/29, 2021.
FBN 20210010241
The following person is doing business as: FILM AND FLORALS 8246 KINLOCK AVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730 BRIGITTE N SUMMERS 8246 KINLOCK AVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: 10/04/2021
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ BRIGITTE N SUMMERS
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 10/06/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy I1327
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 10/08, 10/15, 10/22 & 10/29, 2021.

FBN 20210010330
The following person is doing business as: CAFE WANG 2316 D ST LA VERNE, CA 91750 F W MINGLI, INC. 2316 D ST LA VERNE, CA 91750
The business is conducted by: A CORPORATION
The state of incorporation is California. Registration Number: C3620494
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: 10/01/2016
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ FANG WANG
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 10/08/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy I5199
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 10/08, 10/15, 10/22 & 10/29, 2021.
NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF:
Marina Eugenia Polanco
Case NO. ProsB2100620
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of Marina Eugenia Polanco
A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by Pamela A. Hernandez in the Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that Pamela A. Hernandez be appointed as personal representative to administer the estate of the decedent.
THE PETITION requests authority to administer the estate under the Independent Administration of Estates Act. (This authority will allow the personal representative to take many actions without obtaining court approval. Before taking certain very important actions, however, the personal representative will be required to give notice to interested persons unless they have waived notice or consented to the proposed action.) The independent administration authority will be granted unless an interested person files an objection to the petition and shows good cause why the court should not grant the authority.
A hearing on the petition will be held in Dept. S36 at 9:00 a.m. on 21-Oct-21 at Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, San Bernardino, 247 West 3rd St. San Bernardino, CA 92415-0212, San Bernardino District – Probate
IF YOU OBJECT to the granting of the petition, you should appear at the hearing and state your objections or file written objections with the court before the hearing. Your appearance may be in person or by your attorney.
IF YOU ARE A CREDITOR or a contingent creditor of the decedent, you must file your claim with the court and mail a copy to the personal representative appointed by the court within the later of either (1) four months from the date of first issuance of letters to a general personal representative, as defined in section 58(b) of the California Probate Code, or (2) 60 days from the date of mailing or personal delivery to you of a notice under Section 9052 of the California Probate Code.
Other California statutes and legal authority may affect your rights as a creditor. You may want to consult with an attorney knowledgeable in California law.
YOU MAY EXAMINE the file kept by the court. If you are a person interested in the estate, you may file with the court a Request for Special Notice (form DE-154) of the filing of an inventory and appraisal of estate assets or of any petition or account as provided in Probate Code section 1250. A Request for Special Notice form is available from the court clerk.
Attorney for Petitioner:
Cicely T. Ray
4740 Green River, Suite 314
Corona, CA 92880
Telephone No: 951-735-2488
Published in the San Bernardino Sentinel on:
10/15/2021, 10/22/2021, 10/29/2021

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR CHANGE OF NAME CASE
NUMBER CIVSB2122384
TO  ALL INTERESTED PERSONS: Petitioner:  Alexis Nour Khalaf filed with this court for a decree changing names as follows:
Alexis Nour Khalaf to Alexis Nour Bocanegra
THE COURT ORDERS that all persons interested in this matter appear before this court at the hearing indicated below to show cause, if any, why the petition for change of name should not be granted. Any person objecting to the name changes described above must file a written objection that includes the reasons for the objection at least two court days before the matter is scheduled to be heard and must appear at the hearing to show cause why the petition should not be granted. If no written objection is timely filed, the court may grant the petition without a hearing.
Notice of Hearing:
Date: 11/4/2021
Time: 9:00 a.m.
Department: S16
The address of the court is Superior Court of California,County of San Bernardino, 247 West Third Street, San Bernardino, CA 92415
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this order be published in the  San Bernardino County Sentinel in San Bernardino County California, once a week for four successive weeks prior to the date set for hearing of the petition.
Dated: 9/21/2021
Lynn M. Poncin
Judge of the Superior Court.
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 10/14/2021, 10/21/2021, 10/28/2021, 11/4/2021
NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF:
ANTON TONI KUDJER, JR.
NO. PROSB 2100751
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of ANTON TONI KUDJER, JR.
A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by PATRICIA JEAN KUDJER in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that PATRICIA JEAN KUDJER be appointed as personal representative to administer the estate of the decedent.
THE PETITION requests the decedents wills and codicils, if any, be admitted to probate. The will and any codicils are available for examination in the file kept by the court.
THE PETITION requests authority to administer the estate under the Independent Administration of Estates Act. (This authority will allow the personal representative to take many actions without obtaining court approval. Before taking certain very important actions, however, the personal representative will be required to give notice to interested persons unless they have waived notice or consented to the proposed action.) The independent administration authority will be granted unless an interested person files an objection to the petition and shows good cause why the court should not grant the authority.
A hearing on the petition will be held in Dept. No. S35 at 9 a.m. on NOVEMBER 9, 2021 at Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, 247 West Third Street, San Bernardino, CA 92415, San Bernardino District.
IF YOU OBJECT to the granting of the petition, you should appear at the hearing and state your objections or file written objections with the court before the hearing. Your appearance may be in person or by your attorney.
IF YOU ARE A CREDITOR or a contingent creditor of the decedent, you must file your claim with the court and mail a copy to the personal representative appointed by the court within the later of either (1) four months from the date of first issuance of letters to a general personal representative, as defined in section 58(b) of the California Probate Code, or (2) 60 days from the date of mailing or personal delivery to you of a notice under Section 9052 of the California Probate Code.
Other California statutes and legal authority may affect your rights as a creditor. You may want to consult with an attorney knowledgeable in California law.
YOU MAY EXAMINE the file kept by the court. If you are a person interested in the estate, you may file with the court a Request for Special Notice (form DE-154) of the filing of an inventory and appraisal of estate assets or of any petition or account as provided in Probate Code section 1250. A Request for Special Notice form is available from the court clerk.
Filed: SEPTEMBER 29, 2021
Jennifer Saldana, Court Deputy Clerk
Attorney for Patricia Jean Kudjer:
Jennifer Daniel
220 Nordina St.
Redlands, CA 92373
Telephone No: (909) 792-9244 Fax No: (909) 235-4733
Email address: team@lawofficeofjenniferdaniel.com
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel October 15, 22 & 29, 2021

NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF RAMIRO RODRIGUEZ VILLALPANDO aka RAMIRO RODRIGUEZ, CASE NO. PROPS 2000851
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, and contingent creditors of RAMIRO RODRIGUEZ VILLALPANDO aka RAMIRO RODRIGUEZ, and persons who may be otherwise interested in the will or estate, or both: A petition has been filed by RAMIRO RODRIGUEZ, JR. in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO, requesting that RAMIRO RODRIGUEZ, JR. be appointed administrator to administer the estate of the decedent.
The petition requests that the decedent’s will and codicils, if any, be admitted to probate. The will and any codicils are available for examination in the file kept by the court.
The petition requests authority to administer the estate under the Independent Administration of Estates Act. This authority will allow the personal representative to take many actions without obtaining court approval. Before taking certain very important actions, however, the personal representative will be required to give notice to interested persons unless they have waived notice or consented to the proposed action. The independent administration authority will be granted unless an interested person files an objection to the petition and shows good cause why the court should not grant the authority.
The petition is set for hearing in Dept. No. S35 at SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO SAN BERNARDINO DISTRICT – PROBATE DIVISION 247 W. 3rd STREET SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92415-0212 on November 9, 2021 at 09:00 AM
IF YOU OBJECT to the granting of the petition, you should appear at the hearing and state your objections or file written objections with the court before the hearing. Your appearance may be in person or by your attorney.
IF YOU ARE A CREDITOR or a contingent creditor of the deceased, you must file your claim with the court and mail a copy to the personal representative appointed by the court within the later of either (1) four months from the date of first issuance of letters to a general personal representative, as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 58 of the California Probate Code, or (2) 60 days from the date of mailing or personal delivery of the notice to you under Section 9052 of the California Probate Code.
YOU MAY EXAMINE the file kept by the court. If you are interested in the estate, you may request special notice of the filing of an inventory and appraisal of estate assets or of any petition or account as provided in Section 1250 of the California Probate Code.
Filed: July 23, 3021
Sabrina Felix, Deputy
Attorney for the Petitioner: MARY M. BADER 9227 HAVEN AVENUE, SUITE 368 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730 Telephone: (909) 945-2775 Fax: (909) 945-2778
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 10/`15, 10/22, 10/29, 2021.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR CHANGE OF NAME CASE NUMBER CIVSB 2126021
TO ALL INTERESTED PERSONS: Petitioner: NAOMI RUTH DANIEL filed with this court for a decree changing names as follows:
NAOMI RUTH DANIEL to RUTH NAOMI DANIEL
THE COURT ORDERS that all persons interested in this matter appear before this court at the hearing indicated below to show cause, if any, why the petition for change of name should not be granted. Any person objecting to the name changes described above must file a written objection that includes the reasons for the objection at least two court days before the matter is scheduled to be heard and must appear at the hearing to show cause why the petition should not be granted. If no written objection is timely filed, the court may grant the petition without a hearing.
Notice of Hearing:
Date: 11/22/21
Time: 9:00 a.m.
Department: S16
The address of the court is Superior Court of California,County of San Bernardino, 247 West Third Street, San Bernardino, CA 92415
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this order be published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel in San Bernardino County California, once a week for four successive weeks prior to the date set for hearing of the petition.
Dated: September 9, 2021
Lynn M. Poncin
Judge of the Superior Court.
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 10/15, 10/22, 10/29 & 11/5, 2021

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR CHANGE OF NAME
CASE NUMBER CIVSB2126022
TO ALL INTERESTED PERSONS: Petitioner: CHRISTINA MARIA PICAR CANIO filed with this court for a decree changing names as follows:
CHRISTINA MARIA PICAR CANIO to CHRISTINA MARIA PICAR TAN
THE COURT ORDERS that all persons interested in this matter appear before this court at the hearing indicated below to show cause, if any, why the petition for change of name should not be granted. Any person objecting to the name changes described above must file a written objection that includes the reasons for the objection at least two court days before the matter is scheduled to be heard and must appear at the hearing to show cause why the petition should not be granted. If no written objection is timely filed, the court may grant the petition without a hearing.
Notice of Hearing:
Date: 11/23/2021
Time: 9:00 AM
Department: S16
The address of the court is Superior Court of California,County of San Bernardino, 247 West Third Street, San Bernardino, CA 92415
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this order be published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel in San Bernardino County California, once a week for four successive weeks prior to the date set for hearing of the petition.
Dated: 9/9/2021
John M. Pacheco
Judge of the Superior Court.
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 10/22, 10/29, 11/05 & 11/12, 2021
FBN 20210010365
The following person is doing business as: GUZMAN DESIGN BUILD 1027 W JACARANDA ST ONTARIO, CA 91762 JONATHAN GUZMAN 1027 W JACARANDA ST ONTARIO, CA 91762
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: 10/01/2021
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ JONATHAN GUZMAN
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 10/12/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy I5199
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 10/15, 10/22, 10/29 & 11/05, 2021.
FBN 20210009649
The following person is doing business as: UNALIKE DETAILING. 7739 SOMERSET LN HIGHLAND, CA 92346; ( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO ); RICKY D VAN 7739 SOMERSET LN HIGHLAND, CA 92346; TIANA S VAN 7739 SOMERSET LN HIGHLAND, CA 92346.
The business is conducted by: A MARRIED COUPLE.
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ RICKY D VAN, HUSBAND
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 09/23/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 10/08/2021, 10/15/2021, 10/22/2021, 10/29/2021 CNBB38202113MT

FBN 20210009753
The following person is doing business as: A.K.A GENERAL CONSTRUCTION. 15678 SAN JOSE AVE CHINO HILLS, CA 91709; ( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO ); GUSTAVO ESPINOZA RUEDA 15678 SAN JOSE AVE CHINO HILLS, CA 91709.
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL.
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ GUSTAVO ESPINOZA RUEDA, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 09/24/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 10/08/2021, 10/15/2021, 10/22/2021, 10/29/2021 CNBB38202111IR

FBN 20210009743
The following person is doing business as: BEAM’S AUTO SERVICE. 1863 W LADDS CT #B SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92411
PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO
NICHOLAS L COLEMAN 1863 W LADDS CT #B SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92411.
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL.
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ NICHOLAS L COLEMAN, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 09/21/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 10/08/2021, 10/15/2021, 10/22/2021, 10/29/2021 CNBB38202110MT

FBN 20210009683
The following person is doing business as: COZY STAY 1890 W 13TH ST SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92411; ( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO ); GERALD D CAROLINA 1890 W 13TH ST SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92411
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ GERALD D. CAROLINA, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 09/23/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 10/08/2021, 10/15/2021, 10/22/2021, 10/29/2021 CNBB38202109MT

FBN 20210009642
The following person is doing business as: SUPERIOR FORKLIFT TRAINING 1235 E. FRANCIS ST SUITE #G ONTARIO, CA 91761; ( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO ); AMANA INTERNATIONAL, INC. 1235 E. FRANCIS ST SUITE #G ONTARIO, CA 91761
The business is conducted by: A CORPORATION
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: NOV 17, 2016
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ IBRAHEEM A. SALIM, PRESIDENT
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 09/22/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 10/08/2021, 10/15/2021, 10/22/2021, 10/29/2021 CNBB38202107MT

FBN 20210009643
The following person is doing business as: LOLAH’S BARBER AND BEAUTY 731 W HIGHLAND AVE SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405; ( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO ); LOLAHS B&B LLC 731 W HIGHLAND AVE SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405
The business is conducted by: A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ PAOLA GONZALES, PRESIDENT
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 09/22/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 10/08/2021, 10/15/2021, 10/22/2021, 10/29/2021 CNBB38202106MT

FBN 20210009589
The following person is doing business as: DIVINE LIFE. 30245 FRONTERA DEL SUR HIGHLAND, CA 92346; ( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARINO );
RESHMI S. KAPPATTIL 30245 FRONTERA DEL SUR HIGHLAND, CA 92346.
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL.
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ RESHMI S. KAPPATTIL, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 09/22/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 10/08/2021, 10/15/2021, 10/22/2021, 10/29/2021 CNBB38202105MT

FBN 20210009609
The following person is doing business as: ARCHES & BEAUTY. 3116 ACACIA AVE SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405; ( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO ); EVELYN GONGORA 3116 ACACIA AVE SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405.
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL.
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ EVELYN GONGORA, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 09/22/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 10/08/2021, 10/15/2021, 10/22/2021, 10/29/2021 CNBB38202104CH

FBN 20210009576
The following person is doing business as: AIZE PRINCESS IDEMUDIA. 800 E. WASHINGTON ST. APT 740 COLTON, CA 92324
; ( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO ) ; AIZE P IDEMUDIA 800 E. WASHINGTON ST. APT 740 COLTON, CA 92324.
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL.
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ AIZE P IDEMUDIA, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 09/21/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 10/08/2021, 10/15/2021, 10/22/2021, 10/29/2021 CNBB38202103IR

FBN 20210009629
The following person is doing business as: ZEBASTIAN’S CAR WASH. 17312 FOOTHILL BLVD. UNIT A FONTANA, CA 92335; ( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO ); [ MAILING ADDRESS 8181 PALMETTO AVE. APT 115 FONTANA, CA 92335]; JUAN C PARDO ARIZA 8181 PALMETTO AVE. APT 115 FONTANA, CA 92335; JOHANNA A YEPES OVALLE 8181 PALMETTO AVE. APT 15 FONTANA, CA 92335.
The business is conducted by: A MARRIED COUPLE.
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ JUAN C PARDO ARIZA, HUSBAND
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 09/22/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 10/08/2021, 10/15/2021, 10/22/2021, 10/29/2021 CNBB38202102IR

FBN 20210009372
The following person is doing business as: SPARTAN TOWING L.L.C. 2155 ½ OGDEN ST SAN BERNARDINO, CA 2407; ( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO ); SPARTAN PAINTING L.L.C. 2155 ½ OGDEN ST SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92407
The business is conducted by: A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: AUG 24, 2021
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ EMMANUEL PALOMARES, OWNER/ MANAGER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 09/15/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 10/08/2021, 10/15/2021, 10/22/2021, 10/29/2021 CNBB38202101MT

FBN 202100010081
The following person is doing business as: FVA CLEANING SERVICES. 775 E. FOOTHILL BLVD. SPC 26 RIALTO, CA 92376;( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO ); ANGELICA M VIRAMONTES-DORADO 775 E. FOOTHILL BLVD. SPC 26 RIALTO, CA 92376.
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL.
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ ANGELICA M VIRAMONTES-DORADO, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 10/04/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 10/08/2021, 10/15/2021, 10/22/2021, 10/29/2021 CNBB39202107IR

FBN 2021000831
The following person is doing business as: JOHNSON’S TRANSPORT SERVICES. 3107 CRYSTAL LAKE RD ONTARIO, CA 91761; ( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO ); JOHNSON’S TRANSPORT SERVICES, LLC 3107 CRYSTAL LAKE RD ONTARIO, CA 91761; 3107 CRYSTAL LAKE RD ONTARIO, CA 91761; .
The business is conducted by: A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY.
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ KAMISHAN N. JOHNSON, MANAGING MEMBER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 09/28/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 10/08/2021, 10/15/2021, 10/22/2021, 10/29/2021 CNBB39202106IR

FBN 20210009960
The following person is doing business as: ERIK’S BARBER COMPANY. 2587 W. ESPERANZA ST. SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410; ( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO ); ERIK PEREZ 2587 W. ESPERANZA ST. SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410.
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL.
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ ERIK PEREZ, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 09/30/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 10/08/2021, 10/15/2021, 10/22/2021, 10/29/2021 CNBB39202105IR

FBN 20210009909
The following person is doing business as: RHINO TEX, INC. 15080 HILTON DR FONTANA, CA 92336; ( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO) ; RHINO TEX, INC 15080 HILTON DR FONTANA, CA 92336; 15080 HILTON DR FONTANA, CA 92336; .
The business is conducted by: A CORPORATION.
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ RUSSELL A. COLEMAN, PRESIDENT
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 09/29/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 10/08/2021, 10/15/2021, 10/22/2021, 10/29/2021 CNBB39202104MT

FBN 20210009840
The following person is doing business as: PIGFORD LANDSCAPING. 11428 KEYON WAY RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91701: ( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO ): CHRISTOPHER PIGFORD 11428 KENYON WAY RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91701.
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL.
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ CHRISTOPHER PIGFORD, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 09/28/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 10/08/2021, 10/15/2021, 10/22/2021, 10/29/2021 CNBB39202103MT

FBN 20210009473
The following person is doing business as: ALICE DARLENE DESIGNS. 5375 WALNUT AVE #1573 CHINO, CA 91708; ( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO ); ALICE D BILLS 5375 WALNUT AVE #1573 CHINO, CA 91708.
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL.
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ ALICE D BILLS, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 09/30/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 10/08/2021, 10/15/2021, 10/22/2021, 10/29/2021 CNBB39202102MT

FBN 20210009826
The following person is doing business as: J. CERVANTES ROAD SERVICE, INC. 15957 RANDALL AVE #3 FONTANA, CA 92335; ( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO ); J. CERVANTES ROAD SERVICE, INC 15957 RANDALL AVE #3 FONTANA, CA 92335 .
The business is conducted by: A CORPORATION.
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ JAVIER CERVANTES LANDA, CEO
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 09/28/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 10/08/2021, 10/15/2021, 10/22/2021, 10/29/2021 CNBB39202101IR
FBN 20210010422
The following person is doing business as: NEW WEST UPHOLSTERY. 7046 CENTRAL AVE HIGHLAND, CA 92346; [ MAILING ADDRESS 26978 CYPRESS ST HIGHLAND, CA 92346]; (PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO ); ALBERTO VALENCIA DAMAS 8046 CENTRAL AVE HIGHLAND, CA 92346.
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL.
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ ALBERTO VALENCIA DAMAS, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 10/14/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 10/22/2021, 10/29/2021, 11/05/2021, 11/12/2021 CNBB41202105IR

FBN 20210010635
The following person is doing business as: JG AUTO WHOLESALE. 3116 N ACACIA AVE SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA 92405; ( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO ); JOSE GONGORA 3116 N ACACIA AVE SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92405.
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL.
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ JOSE GONGORA, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 10/19/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 10/22/2021, 10/29/2021, 11/05/2021, 11/12/2021 CNBB41202104CH

FBN 20210009696
The following person is doing business as: CUTTY’S BARBERSHOP. 220 WEST B STREET ONTARIO, CA 91762; ( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO ); MATTHEW S JENSEN 220 WEST B STREET ONTARIO, CA 91762.
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL.
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ MATTHEW S JENSEN, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 09/23/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 10/22/2021, 10/29/2021, 11/05/2021, 11/12/2021 CNBB41202103FA

FBN 20210010424
The following person is doing business as: SUGAR BABY NAILS. 26951 13TH ST HIGHLAND, CA 92346; [ MAILING ADDRESS 311 W CIVIC CENTER DR STE B SANTA ANA, CA 92701 ]; ( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO ); CARINA M CHAPPLE 26951 13TH ST HIGHLAND, CA 92346.
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL.
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ CARINA M CHAPPLE, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 10/14/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 10/22/2021, 10/29/2021, 11/05/2021, 11/12/2021 CNBB41202102CV

FBN 20210010621
The following person is doing business as: SB EXPRESS ONE, LLC. 205 E HOSPITALITY LANE SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92408; ( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO ); SB EXPRESS ONE, LLC 222 EAST GLENARM ST B1 PASADENA, CA 91106
The business is conducted by: A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY.
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ KALPESH SOLANKI, MANAGING MEMBER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 10/19/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 10/22/2021, 10/29/2021, 11/05/2021, 11/12/2021 CNBB41202101MT

By clicking on the blue portal below, you can download a PDF of the October 15 edition of the San Bernardino County Sentinel.

Sentinel 10-15-21

By Mark Gutglueck
The Upland City Council will be voting shortly to hire Michael Blay, the former assistant city manager in Hesperia, as the ultimate replacement for City Manager Rosemary Hoerning, according to information provided to the Sentinel.
City officials, however, have neither confirmed that Blay has risen to the top of dozens of candidates considered for the post by the city council, nor that he is one of two finalists for the post, nor that he had even applied for the city manager’s job.
The now five-month long ongoing recruitment of a new city manager in Upland has been conducted very quietly, so quietly that the city did not disclose it had hired the executive search firm of Ralph Andersen & Associates to invite applications and screen those applicants before making further recommendations to acting City Manager Steven Parker, Human Resources Director Theresa Doyle and the city council.
It is a general practice among cities to restrict information about applicants for city manager/city administrator posts or even department directorships, as those applicants often or even in a majority of cases hold positions with other cities, and the applicants may not want their current employer to know they are about to bug out for greener pastures or a more prestigious position or a higher salary elsewhere. This sort of promiscuity is winked at and tolerated among municipalities as there is a code, apparently, within the municipal culture that holds it is okay for one city to poach another city’s top employees. Still, in most recruitment efforts there may be several or dozens or even scores of applicants for a position such as city manager, and only one of those candidates in the end will be selected. A city manager who applies for a job elsewhere can find himself or herself in a bad position wherein he or she will lose the trust of the council he or she must work with if those council members know the city manager is not 100 percent loyal to the city that employs him or her and is contemplating leaving.
Such may or may not have been the case with Blay, who was decommissioned from his position in Hesperia by the city manager there, Niles Bentsen, around the time that the city manager’s position in Upland was rendered vacant. Upland city officials have not disclosed when Blay applied for position, and it is not known if Bentsen learned that Blay was entertaining a jump to Upland prior to Blay’s departure from Hesperia.
Bentsen and Blay had become close after both were hired by the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department in the late 1980s within one year of one another and as they were advancing through that agency’s ranks in the 1990s and the first decade of the Third Millennium.
Blay, who had been hired by Sheriff Floyd Tidwell as a deputy in 1989, reached the rank of sergeant, but in 2009, in the aftermath of an internal affairs investigation ongoing while Rod Hoops was sheriff, found himself after 20 years and three months with the department faced with the likelihood that he would be terminated. At the age of 44, he elected to take a medical retirement.
Meanwhile, Bentsen continued to ascend professionally, reaching the level of captain, whereupon he was assigned to serve as the commander of the Hesperia sheriff’s station. Blay, in contrast, languished in retirement for more than five years, drawing a $55,748.70 yearly pension based upon his 20 years with the sheriff’s department, augmented by a meager paycheck from a low-intensity security job with a shipping company, while holding a part-time position as an adjunct professor at Victor Valley College, teaching in the field of the administration of justice, for which his highest single year’s compensation in pay and benefits totaled $19,382.59
In December 2015, Hesperia’s city council as it was then composed chose Bentsen to replace Mike Podegracz, who was retiring as city manager. Bentsen assumed the Hesperia city manager’s post in January 2016. Two months later, Bentsen plucked his friend Blay from exile to serve as the City of Hesperia’s director of development services.
Upon his hiring in Hesperia, Blay, who had no municipal training or experience to speak of, was provided with a $143,156 annual salary, another $8,081 in additional pay and $26,635 in benefits for a total annual compensation of $177,872. Less than two years later, Bentsen convinced the city council to allow him to promote Blay to assistant city manager, upping his annual salary to $179,807 with another $9,081 in add-ons, $31,023 in benefits and a $10,282.86 contribution toward Blay’s pension plan for a total yearly compensation of $230,193.86.
If, as reported, Blay has been chosen as the City of Gracious Living’s senior administrator, the Upland City Council’s selection of him comes across as a curious one.
Over the last three decades, Upland has been plagued with instability in the position of city manager. It was not always so. From the city’s inception as an incorporated municipality in 1906 until 1943, Upland’s mayor, advised by the city engineer, managed the city. Beginning in 1943, the city’s longtime city engineer, Richard Manley, began serving in the unofficial capacity of city manager. Upon obtaining at the age of 57 his master’s degree in public administration by attending night classes at the University of Southern California, Manley in 1947 assumed the officially recognized post of actual city manager, remaining in the position until his retirement in 1955. He was subsequently elected to represent Upland and the remainder of San Bernardino County’s Second District on the board of supervisors from 1958 to 1962. Elwin “Pinky” Alder, a licensed pilot and civil draftsman, succeeded Manley, remaining as city manager until 1974. Lee Travers, who was formerly a naval officer, succeeded Alder. Travers remained as city manager for fifteen years. Thus, over the course of 47 years, Upland employed three city managers.
Thereafter, over the next 31 years, Upland has had a succession of 13 city managers: Ray Silver, Mike Matlock in an interim capacity, Kevin Northcraft, Martin Thouvenell in an interim role, G. Michael Milhiser, Robin Quincey, Stephen Dunn, Martin Lomeli, Rod Butler, Martin Thouvenell once more in the role of interim manager over a span of 17 months, Bill Manis, Martin Thouvenell a third intermittent time, Jeannette Vagnozzi, Rosemary Hoerning and now Steven Parker.
For two decades, Upland has been dogged with numerous operational, land use, financial and legal challenges, including the federal indictment and conviction of a former mayor, John Pomierski; the filing of public corruption charges against and conviction of Pomierski’s handpicked city manager, Quncey; and 58 currently unresolved lawsuits the city is involved in. Many of these issues have been attributed to the pattern of discontinuity in management the city has been unable to overcome.
In a significant number of cases, past Upland city councils rushed into hiring city managers in a state of exuberance and confidence with regard to each hiree’s talent, skills and suitability for the position, conferring upon each a substantial salary and benefit package, together with a generous severance guarantee, only to learn later that the individual hired did not fit the bill as had been expected. In every case, the city council made those firings without citing cause for doing so, such that the agreed-upon severances for departing city managers were always paid, an amount which over the years totals more than $2 million. In spite of that, in the case of Vagnozzi, the immediate predecessor to Hoerning who was provided with her guaranteed severance of $155,500 when she was let go in 2019, is suing the city.
Over the last 31 years, Upland city managers have an average tenure in office of two years and one month, making it the least managerially stable of San Bernardino County’s 24 municipalities over the last three decades.
Accordingly, or so it seemed, the current council appeared determined to step off the treadmill of dysfunction and transitory infatuations of the past, with members of the city council offering assurances that this time they were committed to latch onto an individual with a spectrum of talents and facilities, whose make-up would involve paradoxical but necessary elements to ensure his or her success and benefit the city. Wanted and needed was someone capable of overseeing the myriad of civic operations and provisions of municipal services on a day-to-day basis in the here-and-now but who also had the ability to think long term and had a clear, workable, insightful and acceptable vision of the city’s future. The ideal candidate the city was desperately seeking necessarily had to have the desire to, orientation toward, training for and experience in public administration, a proven capability in the arena of municipal operations, yet not be so long in the tooth that he or she was at the end of his or her career such that the city would be left in the lurch after only a few years. Called for was someone with leadership ability, intelligence in the ways of handling low, middle and high intensity challenges, articulate so that the city’s intentions, goals and actions were understood by all, who was principled in setting and meeting standards, who would be flexible enough to adopt to changing circumstance and retreat early and wisely from an imperative that turned out to be unrealistic or unreachable, personable in coordinating and networking with the political masters above him or her as well as Upland’s citizens and the managerial echelon in place at City Hall, yet tough, resolute and rigid enough to ride herd on the city employees who were being paid to ensure that the services residents rightly deserve in exchange for their tax dollars are delivered efficiently.
Some members of the city council thought that Steven Parker, the assistant city manager under Hoerning who had been promoted to the position of interim city manager upon her leaving, might embody the skillset the city was after. Parker, a certified pubic accountant by training and a finance officer in his previous public agency and municipal assignments with the Yorba Linda Water District and the cities of Stanton, San Bernardino and West Covina, was detailed primarily to Upland’s financial affairs by Hoerning, who was a civil engineer by training and had worked in the public works departments of Ontario, Long Beach and Upland before she had acceded to the posts of public works director/city engineer with Redlands and Upland, having promoted from the latter posting into the role of city manager in May 2019. Parker, who is yet young enough to remain as city manager for another 15 years if he were hired into that position, turned down the offer, based on his his belief that the time demands and stress of serving as city manager would impinge on his family commitments, as he and his wife are raising children.
Unable to easily fill the gap created by Hoerning’s forced departure with Parker, the city council set about finding a replacement formalistically, by using a professional executive recruitment firm. Nevertheless, in doing so, the city council did so under a shroud of secrecy.
Upland contracted with Ralph Andersen & Associates to carry out what is now being acknowledged was “a confidential recruitment.” Ralph Andersen & Associates bills itself as “a premier public sector executive job search firm, specializing in government recruiting and human resources consulting.”
According to the company, its “team-oriented [and] 360 [degree] perspective ensures that a complete understanding of the organization’s mission and culture will be achieved. We begin every search by working closely with your leadership, stakeholders, staff, and, when appropriate, your community to develop a complete picture of the desired candidate.”
In the case of Upland, involving the community was not deemed appropriate. So stealthily, in fact, did the city, Parker, the city council and Ralph Andersen & Associates act together that Upland residents were not informed the company had been retained. The Sentinel did an exhaustive search of the Upland City Council’s agendas from March, the month during which Hoerning was placed on paid administrative leave, April, the month in which the city council and Hoerning forged a separation agreement, May, June and July, at which point the acceptance of applications for the city manager position closed. There was no mention whatsoever in those agendas of the city entering into a contractual agreement with Ralph Andersen & Associates for the recruitment, confidential or otherwise, of a candidate for Upland city manager. City officials have been unwilling or unable to produce the contract with Ralph Andersen & Associates. There is indication that internally at City Hall the city’s relationship with Ralph Andersen & Associates was hidden from key employees. No one in the city clerk’s office could identify when an item relating to the city contracting with Ralph Andersen & Associates had been brought before the city council. To complete a more thorough search of the city clerk’s records relating to a contractual relationship with Ralph Andersen & Associates, the city clerk’s office instructed the Sentinel to submit a formal public records request for that information. The Sentinel did so, but had not received a response by press time. Most tellingly, Theresa Doyle, Upland’s human resource manager who would logically be within the loop in relationship to the city’s hiring of a city manager, was unable to identify the date the city entered into a contract with Ralph Andersen & Associates to undertake the city manager recruitment, whether such a contract existed, whether the contract was for a standard recruitment or confidential recruitment or whether it was possible for the city council to enter into a contract with Ralph Andersen & Associates in an arrangement through the city attorney or acting city manager that would bypass her and her office.
The Sentinel contacted Ralph Andersen & Associates in Rocklin, California directly at (916) 630-4900. The woman reached at that number by the Sentinel confirmed that Ralph Andersen & Associates had conducted an executive recruitment effort to find a suitable candidate for Upland city manager, and that the acceptance period for applications for that slot had closed in July. She said she had not been involved with the Upland recruitment, but said she would have the member of the Ralph Andersen & Associates team who did contact the Sentinel.
The Sentinel has been informed that the Upland city manager recruitment effort was headed by Heather Renschler, the chief executive officer with Ralph Andersen & Associates, whose stock-in-trade is confidential headhunting, along with Fred Wilson, a Ralph Andersen associate who was formerly the city manager of San Bernardino and Huntington Beach. The Sentinel wrote a letter delivered to Wilson via email, seeking detail with regard to the recruitment process and the criteria utilized to reduce the field of applicants to a group of finalists who were then evaluated by the city council.
By press time, the Sentinel had not heard back from anyone with Ralph Andersen & Associates.
Upland city officials did not disguise that they were undertaking a recruitment of a new city manager, as they disclosed they were carrying out a “nationwide search,” in early June, after word emanated from certain circles at City Hall that Parker was not interested in assuming the position. Nevertheless, on those occasions when a reference to the recruitment effort was made, there was no mention of Ralph Andersen & Associates. Rather, Parker and others spoke about the city council being assisted by the city’s “consultant” in reference to the recruitment effort and evaluation process.
Application for the Upland city manager position consisted of providing Ralph Andersen & Associates with a résumé and a cover letter.
Without fanfare, by late July, an evaluation of the applicants was being undertaken. The city has not disclosed how many applicants for the position there were. Assurances were made to the public that those seeking the job were numerous and included several “high-caliber” candidates. Virtually nothing is known about what criteria was used in winnowing the field of candidates or how many rounds of reduction there were. The first week of August, those deemed by Ralph Andersen & Associates to be the least qualified candidates or unsuited for Upland were removed from the field. By August 10, after telephonic contacts with the remaining candidates were made, what was either the second or third stage of the reduction process took place, and several more of the applicants received an email in which they were thanked for submitting an application and informed that “after careful consideration and detailed consideration of [their] qualifications,” a decision had been made to have “a select few” of the applicants participate in an interview by the city council, and that “unfortunately” the recipient of the email was not among them.
The city scheduled a special meeting on Tuesday, August 24 at 9 a.m., at which, the meeting’s agenda stated, there was to be a “closed session public employee appointment” relating to the title of “city manager.”
In fact, the meeting was conducted remotely by electronic means. The residents who were present at City Hall were given a glimpse of the meeting, which was initially displayed on the video screens in the council chamber, but they were unable to hear the proceedings, as the audio was shut off. Just as residents who had turned up for the meeting were about to request that the volume be increased, a city employee shut the video off. The closed session produced no appointment, but consisted rather of interviews with the applicants for the city manager position who had not yet been eliminated from the field. The city has not disclosed how many candidates were interviewed.
The minutes of the meeting, which were compiled by City Clerk Keri Johnson, who was present in some fashion at the remotely held proceedings, did not reflect that the interviews had taken place.
“At 9:09 a.m., Mayor Velto announced the city council would recess to closed session pursuant to Government Code Section 54957, title: city manager,” the minutes read. “The city council reconvened in open session at 3:29 p.m. The mayor stated that the council took no reportable action. Mayor Velto adjourned the meeting at 3:30 p.m.”
City officials maintained a public silence about the city manager recruitment until the next city council meeting, which was held on September 13. At that meeting, the agenda once again called for a “closed session public employee appointment” relating to “title: city manager.”
When the council emerged from that closed door discussion, however, there was no report of an appointment having been made. After the meeting, it was disclosed that the council had reduced the field to two candidates.
At this point, more than a month has elapsed with no official final decision on who is to assume the helm of the 77,754 population city.
Nevertheless, this week, on October 12, the Sentinel received a report from a reputable source that Mike Blay, who served for three years as Hesperia’s assistant city manager until he left that post in April and for two years prior to that was Hesperia’s director of development services, is to become Upland’s city manager.
The Sentinel immediately followed up with an effort to learn from city officials whether Blay has, in fact, been chosen. Pointedly, city officials contacted by the Sentinel – Mayor Bill Velto, Councilwoman Janice Elliott, Councilman Carlos Garcia, acting City Manager Steven Parker, City Clerk Keri Johnson, and Human Resources Manager Theresa Doyle – did not or were unwilling to confirm the report of Blay’s imminent hiring. Neither Renschler nor Wilson of Ralph Andersen & Associates would go on record with regard to whether Blay had outdistanced the competition. The Sentinel’s efforts to get a statement from city officials or Ralph Andersen & Associates to the effect that Blay was or was not one of the two finalists or the choice to succeed Hoerning and Parker as city manager fell short.
“The city continues to proceed with its city manager recruitment process,” Mayor Velto told the Sentinel. “Because this process by its nature must be confidential, the city has no comment at this time. The city anticipates making a public announcement about retention of a new city manager at the appropriate time.”
In response to the Sentinel’s question as to whether Blay had been hired by Upland as the new city manager, Parker said, “Thank you for reaching out, but anything discussed in closed session on Monday evening must remain confidential.”
If, indeed, Blay has been settled upon as Upland city manager, his choice is an unexpected one given the circumstances.
At the age of 56, his longevity in the position is not likely to exceed five years or six years, which would defeat the goal of instilling continuity within a key component of Upland’s governmental structure by having a manager who remains in place for a decade or longer.
Moreover, the sum total of Blay’s municipal administrative experience consists of his three years as assistant city manager in Hesperia. HIs experience as a municipal employee runs to those three years and the two years he filled the role as development services director. Blay’s educational credentials, while extending to business and business management/administration, do not include study in municipal management. His hiring in Hesperia was based upon his close friendship with Hesperia City Manager Nils Bentsen, who similarly had no actual training in nor experience in municipal management.
Throughout its 33-year history, Hesperia has developed a reputation as being victimized by a dysfunctional governmental structure, one that has perpetuated a substantial infrastructure deficit, as the city’s political leadership and staff management since Hesperia’s 1988 incorporation has pursued in the name of economic development allowing the building industry to flourish without a match in off-site improvements and infrastructure equal to the burden the growth in the community has wrought. Seventy-two-square mile Hesperia has a reputation of being marred by seriously dilapidating roads and streets, many of which lack curbs, gutters and sidewalks, as well as inadequate drainage and flood control.
Two of Hesperia’s previous city managers, Robert Rizzo and Robb Quincey, were in place while what was essentially unbridled development was taking place in the city. That intensified growth occurred while the developers who profited from that growth were engaged in making substantial monetary contributions to the city’s elected leadership, which was widely perceived as graft and bribery.
In the case of Rizzo, he left the city in 1992, just as revelations about his having served as a distributor of political payoffs originating with development interests to two of the city’s council members and one of its planning members reverberated around the community. Those revelations had the effect of bringing to a halt an effort by ARC Rancho Las Flores to develop a massive 9,100-home subdivision at the city’s extreme south near the mouth of Summit Valley, which as planned involved overburdening of the city’s transportation infrastructure. Following Rizzo’s departure from Hesperia, he resurfaced in the City of Bell in Los Angeles County where 20 years later he was indicted and convicted on public corruption charges.
Likewise, Quincey moved on from Hesperia to become city manager in Upland, where he was forced to leave in 2011 after acts of wrongdoing surfaced there and he was charged in 2012 by the San Bernardino County District Attorney’s Office with felony corruption charges including unlawful misappropriation of public money, gaining personal benefit from an official contract, and giving false testimony under oath. He was ultimately convicted on a perjury charge in a plea deal.
With Bentsen in place as Hesperia’s city manager and Blay as development services director, the Hesperia City Council approved the Tapestry project, which was a revival of the Rancho Las Flores project in 2017, uprated to 15,663 homes. Like its Rancho Las Flores predecessor as planned for under Rizzo, the Tapestry project entailed a similar overburdening of the city’s infrastructure, primarily its roads.
No evidence has emerged to suggest that Bentsen and Blay were on the take and actively militating for the developmental interests and land speculators promoting the Tapestry Project as Rizzo was with the Rancho Las Flores Project. Nevertheless, both came in for heavy criticism for allowing the city, under their watch, to engage in land use decisions that will overburden the city’s existing and future infrastructure and erode Hesperians’ quality of life.
Another derogatory registered against Hesperia that came during Bentsen’s and Blay’s shared managerial tenure in the city was the U.S. Justice Department’s lodging of a discrimination suit in December 2019 that took the city council and city administrators and the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department to task for the Hesperia Crime Free Rental Housing Ordinance drafted in the main by Bentsen while he was the commander of the Hesperia sheriff’s station in 2015, passed by the city council in November 2015 and implemented by the city in 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019, while Bentsen was city manager and Blay was both development services director and assistant city manager.
According to prosecutors with the Civil Rights Section in the Civil Division of the United States Attorney’s Office and the Housing and Civil Enforcement Section of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, the City of Hesperia and the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department misused the ordinance, which was in effect in its original form between January 1, 2016 and its amendment on July 18, 2017 and in a revamped form thereafter, to unfairly banish from the city African-American and Latino renters in violation of the Fair Housing Act.
The Crime Free Rental Housing Ordinance required all rental property owners to evict tenants upon notice by the sheriff’s department that the tenants had engaged in any alleged criminal activity on or near their property. The federal lawsuit alleged that the sheriff’s department exercised its substantial discretion in enforcement to target African-American and Latino renters and areas of Hesperia inhabited in the main by racial and ethnic minorities. The U.S. Attorney’s Office maintained in its suit that although the ordinance purported to target “criminal activity,” the sheriff’s department notified landlords to begin evictions of entire families – including children – for conduct involving one tenant or even non-tenants, evictions of victims of domestic violence, and evictions based on mere allegations and without evidence of criminal activity.
The federal lawsuit alleged that the city, with substantial support from the sheriff’s department, enacted the ordinance with the intent of addressing what one city council member called a “demographical problem” – the city’s increasing African-American and Latino population. The city’s records show the ordinance resulted in the evictions of numerous African-American and Latino renters.
The lawsuit has yet to be resolved, and the situation is marred by the consideration that the city now finds itself without legal representation in the face of the federal government’s legal onslaught against it. Throughout the first 19 months after the suit was filed, the sheriff’s department was represented by Hesperia City Attorney Eric Dunn and his law firm, Aleshire & Wynder. In July, the sheriff’s department sought and obtained different legal representation after Aleshire & Wynder asserted it had determined a conflict exists between the sheriff’s department and the city in the defense to be presented at trial, which is scheduled to commence on March 22, 2022. The sheriff’s department’s new law firm, Lynberg & Watkins, filed a motion with the federal court, which has been granted, seeking to remove Aleshire & Wynder as the city’s counsel, such that the city is now scrambling to find a new legal team by October 26, a date mandated by the court.
Blay’s slender résumé as a municipal employee/administrator/manager does not include any substantial experience in finance or budgeting or public works.
Aside from those considerations, the circumstances of Blay’s departure from both the sheriff’s department in 2009 and Hesperia earlier this year are, for some, an area of concern.
It is known that prior to Blay leaving the department in 2009, the sheriff’s professional standards division, otherwise known as internal affairs, had opened an investigation of him and what has been characterized as his failure to adhere to department protocol in certain circumstances. Blay, a department source told the Sentinel, “has never wanted to follow the rules.”
While he was a patrol sergeant in Victorville in 2005, 2006 and 2007, Blay had failed to properly supervise Deputy Matt Linderman, who was ultimately forced to resign and then prosecuted for having used his position of authority and the threat of arrest while on patrol and interacting with the public to stalk, harass and make sexual demands of women he encountered. Ultimately Linderman was convicted by a jury of sexual battery by restraint, oral copulation under the color of authority, 11 counts of soliciting a bribe and two counts of solicitation to engage in lewd conduct involving 11 women, identified only as Christina, Sheila, Cassie, Jill, Carrie, Christina D. Jenifer, Jaime, Dana, Jessica and Andrea. Linderman was sentenced to a 20-year prison term. He subsequently appealed his convictions. The appeals court reversed one of the solicitation to engage in lewd conduct convictions, finding it was barred by the statute of limitations, but upheld the remainder of the case against him.
An internal sheriff’s department investigation into the matter was begun, at which time Blay had been promoted from the patrol supervision role into a more prestigious position in the department’s special weapons and tactics [SWAT] detail, which at that time was supervised by Bentsen, who was then a lieutenant. The investigation determined that Blay knew about Linderman’s activity through complaints and observation, and that he had failed to take action to stop it, in part because Blay had inappropriate verbal exchanges with women he encountered in the field himself. Blay was then demoted out of SWAT while he was brought up on charges before a discipline board relating to failure to provide proper supervision and making misrepresentations up the chain of command. The discipline board came back with a recommendation for termination. Before that was acted upon by the department, Blay made a claim of injuring his shoulder and went out on medical leave, and never came back to duty, retiring thereafter.
Blay was 44 at the time, six years below the age of what is normally the minimum retirement age and 18 years short of mandatory retirement age. He had at that point achieved the rank of sergeant, such that before he was felled by the fallout from the Linderman case there was a prospect of his acceding to the rank of lieutenant and perhaps captain in parallel with several of his contemporaries and colleagues in the department such as Bentsen, given his educational level, which included a master’s degree.
Blay’s parting with Hesperia earlier this year is equally problematic. His hiring as development services director in 2016 and his promotion to assistant city manager in 2018 were largely or wholly dependent upon his connection with Bentsen, who was characterized by a former member of the department as Blay’s “best friend.”
Hesperia, which had traditionally prohibited any cannabis-related commercial activity, in 2017 moved to allow companies delivering marijuana or cannabis-related products to operate within the city. Blay, as development services director and then as assistant city manager, was entrusted by Bentsen with regulating commercial marijuana and cannabis activity within the city. Bentsen and others became concerned that Blay was uneven in the enforcement of the rules and regulations relating to those businesses, as Blay appeared to be or actually was closer to some of the marijuana entrepreneurs than he was to others. Bentsen removed cannabis regulation as one of Blay’s duties, giving that assignment to another city employee.
Early this year Bentson learned that Blay had been having an affair with one of his municipal underlings. In February, the Sentinel is told, there was a shouting match between Bentsen and Blay over the matter that was audible throughout several office suites at City Hall. By April, Bentsen was no longer employed by Hesperia. One source told the Sentinel that Bentsen had fired Blay. There was no confirmation of that. Another told the Sentinel that Blay did not leave the assistant city manager’s post of his own volition and that, essentially, he was forced to do so.
The Sentinel’s efforts to get from Bentsen or Hesperia Mayor Cameron Gregg an explanation of the events surrounding Blay’s departure were unsuccessful.
In June, according to the social and professional networking service Linked-In, Blay landed a position as the regional director of corporate security for Stanley Black & Decker, Incorporated. Efforts to locate Blay at any of several Stanley Black & Decker corporate offices and outlets in Southern and Northern California were unsuccessful, and the Sentinel was unable to get his version of events by press time.
There was indication that Blay’s application for the Upland city manager’s post had found positive traction based upon his prior association through the sheriff’s department with Darren Goodman, Upland’s police chief. Generationally and in other respects, Blay is at one with Goodman and Bentsen. Bentsen joined the sheriff’s department in 1988, Blay in 1989 and Goodman in 1991. All are college educated; Blay has bachelor’s and master’s degrees, Goodman has a bachelor’s degree along with a master’s degrees in public administration from the University of Southern California and a doctorate from USC’s Rossier School of Education, and Bentsen has an associate’s degree in administration of justice from Victor Valley College. All three were climbing the promotional ladder in the sheriff’s department simultaneously in the 1990s and 2000s.
Goodman was serving as the sheriff’s station commander in Chino Hills when in 2018 he was lured to Upland to serve as police chief.
Chino Hills and Hesperia, like 12 other of San Bernardino County’s 24 cities and incorporated towns – Rancho Cucamonga, Grand Terrace, Loma Linda, Highland, Apple Valley, Victorville, Adelanto, Big Bear, Yucaipa, Yucca Valley, Twentynine Palms and Needles – contract with the sheriff’s department for law enforcement services. The sheriff’s department functions as those cities’ and towns’ police departments, and the sheriff station commanders are those departments’ police chiefs.
In 2020, Upland City Manager Rosemary Hoerning and then-Mayor Debbie Stone suspended Goodman and placed him on administrative leave, based upon a complaint lodged against him by the department’s executive secretary, whom Goodman had demoted. A firestorm of protest ensued, as a spontaneous showing of support for Goodman manifested from a cross section of Upland residents. Goodman was reinstated as police chief in short order, and later that year, Stone was voted out of office and replaced with Velto, a member of the city council at the time who had not supported Goodman’s suspension.
Because of the inhospitality shown toward Goodman by Stone and Hoerning, there is concern among residents and some members of the city council that Goodman, who was a finalist among candidates considered for placement as the City of Riverside’s police chief in late 2019 and January 2020, might jump ship if an opening as police chief with another mid-size or larger municipal police department presents itself.
Within certain quarters in Upland, installing Blay, Goodman’s one-time colleague at the sheriff’s department, as city manager is perceived as a means of achieving the imperative of ensuring that Goodman remains in Upland.

The Red Brennan Group, which last year sponsored the county government-reform initiative Measure K passed by more than two-thirds of San Bernardino County’s voters that was subsequently declared unconstitutional by a judge, has filed an appeal of that ruling.
At present, members of the board of supervisors receive a total annual compensation of $270,000, consisting of $185,000 in combined salary and add-on pay along with another $85,000 in benefits. They are limited to three four-year terms in office.
Under the provisions of Measure K, each supervisor’s total yearly compensation – salary and benefits – was to be reduced to $60,000, and he or she would have been prevented from seeking reelection as supervisor after serving a single four-year term in office.
In promoting Measure K, the Red Brennan Group asserted that the amount of money the supervisors make is roughly four times what the average compensation of county residents is, which renders the county’s political leaders insensitive to the challenges faced by their constituents. Furthermore, according to the Red Brennan Group, the inflated salary and benefits the supervisors are provided has proven a strong incentive for them to remain in office, such that they can and often do solicit and willingly receive huge donations from political donors to provide themselves with political war chests to run the campaigns that would keep them in office. This in turn leads, the Red Brennan Group said, to those politicians’ willingness to trade their votes as board members for those donations, which corrupts the political and governmental process and redounds to the detriment of the county’s residents, even as it enriches those political donors. By radically reducing the pay to the supervisors and preventing them from seeking reelection to the positions they hold, the corrupting influences will be removed and the entrenching of the county’s most powerful elected officials will be rendered impossible, the Red Brennan Group maintained.
A significant number of the county’s voters agreed that the reforms the Red Brennan Group was advocating should be implemented. When Measure K was voted on in the November 2020 election, it passed with 516,184 or 66.84 percent of the 772,282 voters participating supporting it, and 256,098 voters or 33.16 percent opposed.
Even before the election results were certified, the board of supervisors, using taxpayer funds, contracted with three Los Angeles-based attorneys – Bradley Hertz, James Sutton and Nicholas Sanders – to take legal action to block Measure K from going into effect. In their suit on behalf of the board of supervisors, Hertz, Sutton and Sanders did not sue the Red Brennan Group, but rather the supervisors’ own employee, San Bernardino County Clerk of the Board Lynna Monell.
The legal action, a petition for a writ of mandate, alleged that Measure K is fatally flawed because it “violates California Constitution Article XI, Section l(b) by seeking to set supervisor compensation via citizen initiative… [and] it exceeds the initiative power of the electorate by intruding on matters that are exclusively delegated to the governing body, in this case the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors… [and its] term limit provision for members of the county board of supervisors violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution [by] impermissibly infring[ing] on voters’ and incumbents’ First and Fourteenth Amendment rights.” Additionally, the writ of mandate maintained Measure K violates “the single subject rule” pertaining to voter initiatives, such that “Measure K must not be implemented because it does not embrace a single subject.”
The matter was originally slated to go before Judge David Cohn to be adjudicated.
Judge Cohn granted Hertz’s, Sutton’s and Sanders’ motion for a temporary restraining order to halt the implementation of Measure K while the petition for a writ of mandate was being litigated.
As the sponsor of Measure K, the Red Brennan Group sought Judge Cohn’s consent to intervene as a party of standing to respond to the petition for a writ of mandate and defend Measure K and its provisions. The supervisors, maintaining that the issues at stake were limited to a dispute between them and their own clerk, opposed the motion. Judge Cohn, while at first appearing to be disinclined toward granting the Red Brennan Group standing to intervene, ultimately changed his stance and approved the Red Brennan Group’s motion to participate in the discussions relating to the petition. Thereupon, the Red Brennan Group’s attorney, Aaron Burden, immediately followed with a peremptory challenge of Judge Cohn, based on the group’s belief it would not be able to have a fair and impartial trial or hearing before him. The matter was sent to Judge Donald Alvarez for his consideration.
Ultimately, Judge Donald Alvarez found, in a ruling handed down on August 31, that Measure K is unconstitutional and cannot be implemented or enforced.
While Judge Alvarez rejected the supervisors’ argument that only they have the authority to set their pay, he ruled that the single-term limit contained in Measure K violated the U.S. Constitution. He further found that since one element of the measure was deemed unenforceable, the entire initiative had to be thrown out.
Judge Alvarez rejected Hertz’s, Sutton’s and Sanders’ argument that Measure K violates California Constitution Article XI, Section l(b) by using the citizen initiative process to set the supervisors’ pay rate and that the board’s salaries and benefits are a province that falls exclusively under the purview of the supervisors themselves. Alvarez said that because the terms of San Bernardino County’s governance is set by a charter, the board can only propose amendments and revisions to the charter, extending to the supervisors’ pay, and those changes to the charter have to be adopted by voters at an election. Therefore, Judge Alvarez said, the voters through Measure K could reduce the supervisors’ pay and benefits to $60,000 per year.
Nevertheless, Judge Alvarez ruled, there was merit in Hertz’s, Sutton’s and Sanders’ contention that Measure K’s term limit provision for members of the county board of supervisors violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution by infringing on voters’ and incumbents’ First and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
In coming to that conclusion, Judge Alvarez reasoned that a single term did not provide “a supervisor sufficient time in the governing body position. Additionally, although an electorate has no constitutional right to vote for a particular candidate, the desire to ensure a candidate seeks to serve the public interest cannot justify then precluding a candidate or electing an incumbent he believes is serving the interest of the voters at least for one or two additional terms of office. And a reasonable remedy exists if the incumbent seeking re-election is not performing competently: the electorate [can] vote for the other candidate.”
Judge Alvarez took up the issue of the severability of the two provisions of Measure K, one being the pay reduction element and the other term limits. The question was whether one of the provisions would still be applicable if the other was not. Judge Alvarez ruled that the Red Brennan Group had “fail[ed] to demonstrate the two provisions are volitionally separable. Nothing is offered that the voters would have voted yes for Measure K if they knew the one-term limit provision would be invalid leading to the measure only covering the board’s compensation. Rather, the two provisions, although grammatically and functionally separate, are intertwined associated with the proponents’ advocacy to the voters for Measure K’s passage. Thus, it cannot be said Measure K would pass if one provision were missing. And without establishing [the provisions are] volitionally separable, severance cannot be obtained.”
Judge Alvarez’s ruling was filed August 31. The Red Brennan Group gave notice it would appeal almost immediately. On September 22, it lodged that challenge with the Fourth District Court of Appeal in Riverside.
The Red Brennan Group is not contesting Judge Alvarez’s finding that Measure K’s provision calling for the reduction in the supervisors’ pay passes constitutional muster and that the charter authorizes the county’s residents to determine what the level of pay the supervisors are to receive. Rather, the nonprofit is taking issue with the judge’s finding that the single term provision of Measure K is unconstitutional and that its unconstitutionality provides the basis to invalidate the measure or invalidate the accompanying compensation reduction contained in the initiative. One of the Red Brennan Group’s legal theories is that in making his finding that a single term limit could not be imposed, Judge Alvarez used language similar to or precisely the same as the arguments that were made against term limits in general that were rejected by the California Supreme Court decades ago in a decision which allowed for California’s current imposition of term limits.
The board of supervisors in response has filed a cross-appeal, one that is diametric to the Red Brennan Group’s. The supervisors do not challenge that Judge Alvarez correctly assessed that citizens do not have the right to limit a politician to a single term in office or that putting such a provision into an initiative invalidates the entire measure. Rather, the county supervisors maintain, Judge Alvarez was in error when he made a finding that citizens have the right to set the rate of remuneration their elected representatives are to receive.
-Mark Gutglueck

The impact of the novel coronavirus on the local gaming industry has resulted in a novel lawsuit, one that carries with it the possibility of creating a legal precedent of breathtaking scope, as the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians is suing Lloyds of London and a coterie of other insurance companies for $300 million over lost revenue from the three-month long suspension of gambling at its casino that came in reaction to the COVID-19 pandemic last year.
Represented by the law firm of Latham & Watkins, the tribe filed the suit on March 9, 2021 in San Bernardino County Superior Court, naming Westport Insurance Corporation, Crum Forster Specialty Insurance Company, Western World Insurance Company, Ironshore Specialty Insurance Company, QBE Specialty Insurance Company, Starr Surplus Lines Insurance Company, Ategrity Specialty Insurance Company, Tokio Marine America Insurance Company, Landmark American Insurance Company, The Princeton Excess and Surplus Lines Insurance Company, Homeland Insurance Company of New York, Allied World National Assurance Company, Empire Indemnity Insurance Company and a coffeehouse chock full of underwriters and syndicates with Lloyds of London, claiming the lot of them had reneged on what is termed “all risk” coverage of the tribe’s casino and related operations by not making up for the proceeds the tribe would have realized from the gaming and other moneymaking operations at the San Manuel Casino while the gaming tables were shut down.
“This suit concerns the refusal by certain insurance companies to comply with their obligations to plaintiffs, the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians and the San Manuel Entertainment Authority,” the complaint reads. “In exchange for substantial premiums, the defendant all risk insurers issued insurance policies that provided ‘all risk’ coverage for the tribe and its insured locations, including the San Manuel Casino. This is the broadest form of first-party insurance coverage available in the marketplace. Under these all risk policies, the insurers pledged to cover risks ‘except those excluded under the terms of the insuring contract.’ Repudiating the broad coverage promised to the tribe, the defendant all risk insurers have refused to pay for the business interruption at the casino caused by the imminent or actual property damage from the ubiquitous presence of the novel coronavirus formally known as SARS14 CoV-2 and the disease it causes: COVID-19. While damage from the spread of SARS-CoV-2 and the COVID-l9 pandemic have ravaged every aspect of the economy, perhaps no sector has been hit harder than gaming and hospitality, which requires the very type of indoor, in-person congregation and interaction that closure orders and other limitations prohibit. As [a] result, the tribe has suffered significant business interruption losses at the casino and its related properties, which through the course of the pandemic have mounted to more than $300 million and are continuing. Coverage at this amount and under such broad policy is very expensive: the tribe paid over $6 million in premiums for the policy year of April 1, 2019 to April 1, 2020, and over $43 million for coverage over the last ten years. Yet despite the tribe paying more than $6 million in premiums to secure [a] top of the line, all-risk policy portfolio affording more than $1.6 billion in coverage limits, the defendant all risk insurers refused to honor their obligations when the tribe needed its insurers the most.”
The insurance companies skipped out on their responsibilities, clearly and simply, the suit maintains.
“The purpose and nature of the business interruption coverage provided in ‘all risk’ property policies is to protect policyholders (like the tribe) against losses arising from an inability to continue normal business operations due to circumstances precisely like those presented by the COVID-19 pandemic, unless this type of peril is expressly excluded,” the suit states. “To date, the insurers have not paid [a] single penny of the tribe’s losses. This failure has had significant financial ramifications for the tribe, as casino gaming revenue represents the tribe’s most valuable business asset and the primary means to meet the objectives for the tribal government and its citizens.”
The suit notes, “The casino includes thousands of the latest slot machines, live Vegas-style table games, high-limit gaming, unique shopping, and award-winning dining, and the tribe also owns, directly or indirectly, other businesses such as the Bear Springs Hotel. Casino operations are located on tribal land at the San Manuel Reservation near the city of Highland, in San Bernardino County. Despite plaintiffs’ best efforts to safely navigate its gaming operations amid the unprecedented challenges presented by the pandemic, their businesses have suffered physical loss or damage caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus and COVID-19, including substantial losses resulting from the related suspensions and interruptions to the business. In this regard, the casino gaming and hospitality operations were shut down in March 2020 pursuant to orders from the tribe’s duly authorized governing body and guidance from the San Manuel Tribal Gaming Commission, which regulates all gaming activities within the tribe’s jurisdiction consistent with tribal, federal, and state regulations. The closure resulted from… the ubiquitous presence of SARS-CoV-Z and COVID-19. To help mitigate these impacts and ensure the casino did not become [a] vector for the spread 0f SARS-CoV-Z, the casino remained closed for three months until June 9, 2020 (opening to the general public on June 15), during which time the property was unfit for its intended purposes until safe occupancy and limited operation could be assured through the undertaking of extraordinary remedial and preventive measures.”
The suit maintains the tribe undertook efforts and precautions to “maintain the health and safety of its employees and patrons. The casino continues to take [a] vigilant stance on providing [a] safe physical environment for its guests and team members by implementing health checks, incorporating [a] team of hundreds of health screeners, and employing guest safety concierges to enforce mask wearing and social distancing. Other steps, including closing restaurants for in-service dining (or altogether in some cases), closing or reducing occupancy in retail stores, converting the casino to [a] non-smoking facility, reducing the number of available gaming spaces in both slots and table games, and reducing overall occupancy of the casino, greatly affected casino operations. Yet even operating with these significant limitations and adopting world-class mitigation techniques, the risk and impact of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 persists.”
The suit propounds that “As of this filing, plaintiffs’ estimated losses stemming from the presence of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-l9 – first from the compulsory closure of the casino and then the subsequent implementation of restricted and limited operations – exceed $300 million (along with related mitigation expenses), and will continue to mount until the casino can resume its normal business activity.”
According to the suit, the all risk policies were secured by the tribe “to preserve the continuity of the tribe’s business. Yet [the] defendants have steadfastly refused to pay for these devastating losses.”
There is no loophole for the companies being sued to slip through, the suit maintains.
“These risks associated with viruses, communicable diseases, and pandemics have been known to the insurance industry for [a] century and have been evident in recent decades through outbreaks and pandemics,” the suit states. “Because these risks are well known, there are exclusions in common usage in the insurance industry that specifically reference losses caused by viruses, communicable diseases and pandemics. In fact, many of the most common ‘boilerplate’ insurance policies covering businesses include this exclusionary language, which largely prevent recovery due to losses incurred by pandemics. Here, however, the tribe’s ‘all risk’ policy wording is [a] unique or ‘manuscripted’ program designed specifically for the risks associated with the tribe’s property. The policy form includes no such virus or communicable disease exclusion. All of the highly sophisticated insurance companies issuing the all risk policies had multiple opportunities to review the policy form. Each insurance company could either sign on to cover plaintiffs under the policy form wording or make changes, including carving out coverage through exclusions, creating policy sublimits, or adding, editing, or eliminating endorsements. Indeed, anticipating the type of risk, loss, and damages posed by virus such as SARS-CoV-2 or the COVID-19 pandemic, two of the tribe’s all risk insurers added endorsements – modifying the policy form – to exclude losses caused by virus or communicable disease. Those two all risk insurers are not named here as defendants. All of the tribe’s other all risk insurers did not include such exclusions and, therefore, expressly agreed to cover such losses as part of their insurance policies. The tribe bought $1.6 billion of insurance for business income losses precisely to cover catastrophic situations at its properties. Defendant all risk insurers have refused to honor their obligations and pay for the tribe’s devastating losses. This ongoing failure has compelled plaintiffs to commence this lawsuit.”
Covered under the insurance policies were the casino, a separate hotel, nearly 5,000 gaming machines, approximately 150 table games, over 100 hotel rooms, food service facilities and restaurants, three retail establishments, bars, and four service bars and more than 4,000 individuals or employees, according to the suit.
“Under normal circumstances, the tribe welcomes on average tens of thousands of guests onto the casino property per day,” suit states. “Most of the tribe’s revenue derives from gaming, with [a] smaller portion generated by hotel, dining, retail, concessions, and certain other ancillary activities. However, all of these revenue streams depend on the volume of customers physically present at the casino and affiliated properties.”
According to the suit, “As [a] direct and proximate result of the defendant all risk insurers’ breach, plaintiffs have sustained losses, including interest thereon, and reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs [of] more than $300 million with the exact amount to be proven at trial.”
The Sentinel was unable to get any corporate officers with the Westport Insurance Corporation to offer a reaction to the lawsuit.
-Mark Gutglueck