SUMMONS – (CITACION JUDICIAL)
CASE NUMBER (NUMERO DEL CASO) CIV SB 2316403
NOTICE TO NICOLE HANDRINOS aka NICOLE HOMME; WILLIAM HANDRINOS; and DOES, 1 through 50, inclusive
YOU ARE BEING SUED BY PLAINTIFF:
(LO ESTA DEMANDANDO EL DEMANDANTE):
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY
NOTICE! You have been sued. The court may decide against you without your being heard unless you respond within 30 days. Read the information below.
You have 30 CALENDAR DAYS after this summons is served on you to file a written response at this court and have a copy served on the plaintiff. A letter or phone call will not protect you. Your written response must be in proper legal form if you want the court to hear your case. There may be a court form that you can use for your response. You can find these court forms and more information at the California Courts Online Self-Help Center (www.courtinfo.ca.gov/selfhelp), your county law library, or the courthouse nearest you. If you cannot pay the filing fee, ask the court clerk for a fee waiver form. If you do not file your response on time, you may lose the case by default, and your wages, money, and property may be taken without further warning from the court.
There are other legal requirements. You may want to call an attorney right away. If you do not know an attorney, you may want to call an attorney referral service. If you cannot afford an attorney, you may be eligible for free legal services from a nonprofit legal services program. You can locate these nonprofit groups at the California Legal Services Web site (www.lawhelpcalifornia.org), the California Courts Online Self-Help Center (www.courtinfo.ca.gov/selfhelp), or by contacting your local court or county bar association. NOTE: The court has a statutory lien for waived fees and costs on any settlement or arbitration award of $10,000 or more in a civil case. The court’s lien must be paid before the court will dismiss the case.
¡AVISO! Lo han demandado. Si no responde dentro de 30 dias, la corte puede decidir en su contra sin escuchar su version. Lea la informacion a continuacion
Tiene 30 DIAS DE CALENDARIO después de que le entreguen esta citación y papeles legales para presentar una repuesta por escrito en esta corte y hacer que se entreque una copia al demandante. Una carta o una llamada telefonica no le protegen. Su respuesta por escrito tiene que estar on formato legal correcto si desea que procesen su caso en la corte. Es posible que haya un formulano que usted puede usar para su respuesta. Puede encontrar estos formularios de la corte y mas información en el Centro de Ayuda de las Cortes de California (www.sucorte.ca.gov), en la biblioteca de leyes de su condado o en la corte que le quede mas cerca. Si no puede pagar la cuota de presentación, pida si secretario de la corta que le de un formulario de exencion de pago de cuotas. Si no presenta su respuesta a tiempo, puede perder el caso por incumplimiento y la corta le podrá quitar su sueldo, dinero y bienes sin mas advertencia.
Hay otros requisitos legales. Es recomendable que llame a un abogado inmediatamente. Si no conace a un abogado, puede llamar a un servicio de referencia a abogados. Si no peude pagar a un a un abogado, es posible que cumpia con los requisitos para obtener servicios legales gratu de un programa de servicios legales sin fines de lucro. Puede encontrar estos grupos sin fines de lucro en el sitio web de California Legal Services, (www.lawhelpcalifornia.org), en el Centro de Ayuda de las Cortes de California, (www.sucorte.ca.gov), o poniendoso en contacto con la corte o el colegio de abogados locales. AVISO: Por ley, la corte tiene derecho a reclamar las cuotas y los costos exentos gravamen sobre cualquier recuperación da $10,000 o mas de vaior recibida mediante un aceurdo o una concesión de arbitraje en un caso de derecho civil. Tiene que pagar el gravamen de la corta antes de que la corta pueda desechar el caso.
The name and address of the court is: (El nombre y la direccion de la corte es):
Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, 247 West 3rd St, San Bernardino, CA 92415-0212, Branch Name: San Bernardino Justice Center
The name, address and telephone number of plaintiff’s attorney, or plaintiff without an attorney, is: (El nombre, la direccion y el numero de telefono del abogado del demandante, o del demendante que no tiene abogado, es):
NAZILA Y. LEVY, Esquire
LEVY & NOURAFCHAN
9454 WILSHIRE BLVD., SUITE 500
BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90212
Phone: (310) 274-9993
Fax: (310) 888-3255
DATE (Fecha): JULY 19, 2023
Clerk (Secretario), by Abriana Rodriguez
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on July 5, 12, 19 & 26, 2024.

FBN 20240004813
The following entity is doing business primarily in San Bernardino County as
INTERNATIONAL AUTOS 148 E BASELINE STREET SUITE C-10 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410: CAPSULA CORPORATION 2100 S LARK ELLEN AVE 90 WEST COVINA, CA 91792
Business Mailing Address: 148 E BASELINE STREET SUITE C-10 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410
The business is conducted by: A CORPORATION registered with the State of California under the number 5426306.
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/ JOHN KENNEDY MUNOZ ROSARIO, President
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 5/20/2024
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 J2523
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 June 28 and July 5, 12 & 19, 2024.

Continue reading →

The Chino Valley Unified School District and the parents of eight students attending its schools and those in three other school districts in California have filed a lawsuit against Governor Gavin Newsom, California Attorney General Rob Bonta and California Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond in an effort to prevent the enforcement of a recently passed state law prohibiting schools from making a practice of notifying parents if their children are assuming a gender different from the one assigned them at birth.
The suit comes nearly a year after the Chino Valley Unified School District Board of Trustees instituted a parental notification policy that was in short order challenged by Bonta and his office and thereby blocked from being applied.
Representing the district and parents Oscar Avila, Monica Botts, Jason Craig, Kristi Hays, Cole Mann, Victor Romero, Gheorghe Rosca, Jr. and Leslie Sawyer are the Austin, Texas-based Liberty Justice Center and attorney Emily Rae.
The lawsuit challenges AB 1955, which was signed by Governor Newsom on Monday, July 15 and is scheduled to take effect January 1, 2025. AB 1955, authored by Assembly Member Chris Ward, D-San Diego, came in reaction to the passage of Chino Valley Unified’s policy followed by similar actions by the Orange, Temecula Valley and Murrieta Valley school districts.
The Chino Unified School District Board of Education took up the issue of parental notification after Republican Assemblyman Bill Essayli in March 2023 introduced Assembly Bill 1314, which would have required schools in California to notify parents in writing within three days if a student identified at school as a gender different from his or her assigned gender at birth. AB 1314 died a quiet legislative procedural death when Assemblyman Al Muratsuchi, a Democrat and the chairman of the Assembly Education Committee, declined to set a hearing date for the bill before his committee, such that the bill was not given a chance to be considered by the entire Assembly. Continue reading →

So far, six local voter initiatives have qualified to appear on the November 5 ballot corresponding to the Presidential General Election in San Bernardino County.
One of those will be a measure to increase the tax for short-term vacation rentals such as hotels, motels, inns and so-called air mattress bed and breakfasts in the county’s unincorporated areas.
In Grand Terrace, voters will consider a 1 cent per dollar sales tax override, what city officials are calling a 1 percent transactions and use tax.
The City of Needles is asking its voters to determine whether the city should impose a 10 percent tax on all marijuana related businesses.
The City of Rancho Cucamonga is turning to its residents this year to see if they will vote to approve a “transient occupancy tax,” otherwise known as a bed tax or hotel/motel tax, of 12 percent.
The City of Yucaipa is asking its residents to approve a one cent per dollar sales tax.
The Morongo Unified School District is asking the residents who live within its boundaries to authorize the district to issue and sell up to $88,300,000 in bonds, the proceeds from which are to be used for the specific school facilities projects. Continue reading →

By Mark Gutglueck
The latest recall effort in San Bernardino presents the public with a confusing mélange of conflicting political and personal entanglements, leaving confusion as to who, precisely, wants two of the senior members of the city council removed from office.
This week, it was publicly announced that a group of city residents living in both the First and Fourth wards want to force a recall question against Councilman Ted Sanchez and Councilman Fred Shorett.
Sanchez was first elected to the city council in 2018 and was reelected in 2022. Shorett was elected to the council in 2009, reelected in 2013, reelected in 2018 and again in 2022.
Shorett’s early tenure in office was distinguished by his alliance with then-Mayor Patrick Morris, which was an unlikely pairing, given that Shorett is a Republican and Morris a Democrat. Nevertheless, the two were part of a narrow ruling majority on the council that formed when the city was under severe economic challenge, with consistent consecutive budget deficits in which expenditures eclipsed revenue. Morris, who was himself a longtime public employee as both a prosecutor in the district attorney’s office and then later a Superior Court judge, took what was for many an unexpected if not shocking stand against public employee unions, which for decades had effectively pressured previous mayors and city councils to grant them salary and benefit increases, despite the city’s shrinking income. Shorett joined with Morris in seeking to reduce city expenditures by freezing city employee pay levels and holding the line on benefits, which managed to stave off for a year or year-and-a-half an inevitable bankruptcy filing by the city in 2012. While Shorett found himself faced with the undying enmity of local public employee unions, he managed to get some level of credit from city residents for his efforts to maintain the city’s solvency, and has managed to stay in office for a decade-and-a-half. Continue reading →

The wife and five children of Keith Vinyard have filed a wrongful-death lawsuit against San Bernardino County, the sheriff’s department, Sheriff Shannon Dicus and at least two unnamed deputies as a consequence of the unarmed 52-year-old’s execution on March 23.
On March 23 at roughly 9:50 p.m. in Hesperia, Vinyard was shot and killed after deputies, in apparent response to a domestic violence warrant for Vinyard’s arrest, engaged in a vehicle chase in which he attempted to escape and was, according to the department, driving recklessly. The pursuit ended within the vicinity of the 15400 block of Halinor Street, at which point Vinyard refused to comply with commands made by a deputy, according to the department. During that exchange, according to the department, Vinyard threatened to shoot the deputy. It was subsequently determined that Vinyard was not in possession of a gun. Vinyard did, however, according to the department, arm himself with a “large metal object” as other deputies arrived on scene.
As that was taking place, according to one of the deputies, a second deputy and a third deputy opened fire on Vinyard after a first deputy discharged his service gun, even though one of those deputies did not consider Vinyard at that moment represented a threat, but considered it necessary for the deputies on the scene to act in unison because the threshold of a use of deadly force was occurring.
As of April 4, the California Attorney General’s Office had initiated a review of Vinyard’s shooting under California Government Code Section 12525.3, which requires that the California Department of Justice serve as an independent agency to investigate statewide police officer shootings resulting in the death of an unarmed civilian.
While the sheriff’s department maintains that Vinyard was in possession of a deadly weapon – the large metal object it was claimed Vinyard was holding – witnesses at the scene as well as at least one of the deputies did not have anything in his hands and was yet inside his car when he was felled in a hail of gunfire.
Gage’s lawsuit on behalf of Tiffany Shernaman-Vinyard and the couple’s four sons and one daughter maintains Vinyard had not in any way threatened the physical safety of the officers at the scene.