Sheriff’s Office & Hesperia Part Company On Defense In Federal Discrimination Suit

San Bernardino County and its sheriff’s department have parted ways with the City of Hesperia over their shared defense against the federal government’s 2019 lawsuit alleging the city and the department discriminated against African Americans and Latinos with the 2017 passage and subsequent enforcement of Hesperia’s “Crime Free Rental Housing Ordinance.”
Throughout the first 31 months that the case was being litigated, the city and county shared the same law firm, Aleshire & Wynder, as their legal representative. Aleshire & Wynder is the firm in which Hesperia City Attorney Eric Dunn is a founding partner. With the city and sheriff’s department, which provides contract law enforcement services to the city, as well as the county represented by the same firm, the defense being put on was, at least ostensibly, coordinated and complimentary, with no showing of inconsistent or conflicting assertions of fact or legal theory as the case was progressing toward trial. In July, however, the county filed for a substitution of attorney, replacing Aleshire & Wynder with the law firm of Lynberg & Watkins. Thereafter, attorneys with Lynberg & Watson, asserting that a conflict between the sheriff’s department and the city had existed from the initiation of the litigation onward that Aleshire & Wynder failed to disclose and deal with forthrightly, sought to have the court, in the person of Federal Judge Andre Birotte, Jr., remove Aleshire & Wynder as the city’s legal representative in the case.
At this point, some 34 months after the federal lawsuit was filed and less than five-and-a-half months before the matter is scheduled to go to trial on March 22, 2022, the contretemps between the city and the county has thrown the defense of both into disarray. With 80 filings already made in the case, some of them quite substantial, it will be a daunting, and expensive, task for the lawyers that will be representing the county, the city and the department to come up to speed with regard to the issues dealt with so far while contending with new filings by the government. Compounding that, the possibility that the two primary defendant agencies – the city and the sheriff’s department – will be sniping at each other both before and during the trial renders doubtful that the matter will ultimately be resolved positively for either the city or the county. Accordingly, the city is looking to settle the case by negotiation with the U.S. Attorney’s Office perhaps as early as next week.
In December 2019, the U.S. Justice Department, through 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, filed a lawsuit alleging that the City of Hesperia and the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department misused the City of Hesperia’s so-called Crime Free Rental Housing Ordinance, which was in effect between January 1, 2016 and its amendment on July 18, 2017, 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 the 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 councilmember called a “demographical problem” – the city’s increasing African American and Latino population. The ordinance resulted in the evictions of numerous African American and Latino renters.
The lawsuit was based on an investigation and charge of discrimination by the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development, which found that African American and Latino renters were significantly more likely to be evicted under the ordinance than white renters, and that evictions disproportionately occurred in parts of Hesperia where the majority of homeowners or renters were members of a racial or ethnic minority. According to the complaint, the Department of Housing and Urban Development determined that African American renters were almost four times as likely as non-Hispanic white renters to be evicted because of the ordinance, and Latino renters were 29 percent more likely than non-Hispanic white renters to be evicted. Sheriff’s department data showed that 96 percent of the people the sheriff’s department targeted for eviction under the ordinance in 2016 had lived in census blocks where racial and ethnic minority members constituted a majority of the residents.
Citing statements by city officials who expressed a desire to reverse “demographic” changes in Hesperia and persuade recent arrivals from Los Angeles County to get “the hell out of our town,” the lawsuit alleged that city officials enacted the ordinance to drive African American and Latino renters out of Hesperia.
Included among the plaintiff’s attorneys involved in the case are Assistant Attorney General Kristen Clarke, Head of the Housing and Civil Enforcement Section Sameena Shina Majeed, Deputy Chief of the Housing and Civil Enforcement Section R. Tamar Hagler, Acting Deputy Chief of the Federal Coordination and Compliance Section Anna Medina, trial attorneys Aurora Bryant, Christopher D. Belen, Abigail A. Nurse and Alyssa C. Lareau, Acting United States Attorney in Los Angeles Tracy L. Wilkison, Chief of the Los Angeles Civil Division David Harris, Chief of the Los Angeles Civil Rights Division Karen Ruckert, Assistant United States Attorney Matthew Nickell and Assistant United States Attorney Katherine M. Hikida
In July, lawyers with Aleshire & Wynder raised an unspecified issue they thought might represent a conflict between the city and the sheriff’s department, and sought to withdraw from representing the county entities, those being the sheriff’s department and the county itself.
The county’s new legal representatives, lawyers Shannon L. Gustafson and Amy R. Margolies with Lynberg & Watkins, on August 18 filed a motion to disqualify Aleshire & Wynder as Hesperia’s counsel.
According to that motion, “On October 22, 2019, prior to the initiation of this lawsuit, but after HUD [the Department of Housing and Urban Development] issued its charge of discrimination, a precursor to this lawsuit, the county defendants tendered their defense pursuant the contract between the city and the county for law enforcement services in the City of Hesperia, defendant city accepted the tender, setting forth that, ‘The city will accept the tender of defense of the County of San Bernardino in the matter of the discrimination charge.’ Thereafter, all defendants (city, county and sheriff) were collectively represented by city defendant’s attorneys, the law firm Aleshire & Wynder, LLP since the filing of this action by plaintiff. However, on July 6, 2021, more than 19-months into this litigation, Aleshire & Wynder notified the county defendants that an actual conflict of interest exists between the city and the county and abruptly dropped county defendants as clients, indicating that Aleshire & Wynder would no longer represent the county or the sheriff’s department due to the conflict; but, elected to remain as counsel for city defendants. Based on Aleshire & Wynder’s position that it would no longer represent them, the county defendants were forced to retain new counsel and a request for approval of substitution of counsel was filed on July 14, 2021, and approved by the court on July 22, 2021. On July 28, 2021, shortly after being confirmed as counsel of record, new defense counsel pursuant to Central District Local Rule 7-3 initiated the meet and confer process with Aleshire & Wynder, setting forth the county defendants’ position that the conflict of interest required the disqualification of Aleshire & Wynder. The parties met and conferred several times between July 28, 2021 and August 5, 2021 to attempt to resolve the conflict and were unable to do so. Aleshire & Wynder therefore requested time to meet with the Hesperia City Council to request permission to voluntarily withdraw and indicated that they would do so at the next available meeting on August 17, 2021. The county defendants therefore agreed to wait until after this meeting with the sincere hope that Aleshire & Wynder would do the right thing, given its former representation of the county. However, on August 18, 2021, San Bernardino County Counsel was informed that a voluntary withdrawal would not be filed. The county defendants have therefore made a good faith effort pursuant to Local Rule 7-3 to request that Aleshire & Wynder voluntarily withdraw, given its ethical obligations to its former client. It is now evident that this motion is the only recourse the county defendants have to seek disqualification of Aleshire & Wynder for the reasons stated herein. County defendants make their motion on the grounds that city defendant’s counsel has violated California Rule of Professional Conduct 3-310 by failing to obtain the informed written consent of each client as there was a potential conflict of interest from the beginning of the representation.”
Furthermore, according to Gustafson and Margolies, Aleshire & Wynder are responsible “for creating an actual conflict of interest in violation of California Rule of Professional Conduct 1.7 when it ceased representation of the county defendants. Here, by electing to represent all defendants (city, county and sheriff’s department) at the outset, and, for the last nineteen months, Aleshire & Wynder created an actual conflict of interest and sought to avoid this conflict by abruptly dropping county defendants like a hot potato, something the law prohibits. This tactic is a violation of Aleshire & Wynder’s most sacred duties of confidentiality and loyalty. Furthermore, these violations have interfered with the orderly administration of justice and the progress of this case. Accordingly, county defendants request that Aleshire & Wynder be disqualified from continuing to represent any party in this case and for ancillary relief.”
It has not been publicly disclosed what the conflict referenced consisted of. There is some overlap between the sheriff’s department and the city with regard to issues featured in the case. Aside from the sheriff’s department serving as Hesperia’s de facto police department under a contract to provide law enforcement services, the matter is complicated by the consideration that in 2015, Nils Bentsen was the commander of the Hesperia sheriff’s station and was thus serving as what was essentially Hesperia’s police chief. Bentsen was in large measure the architect of the Crime Free Rental Housing Ordinance, which was drafted over an extended period of time in 2015 and enacted by the city council in November 2015. The following month, Bentsen was appointed by the city council to assume the position of city manager, which he formally filled in January 2016 after his retirement from the sheriff’s department. The city did not implement the ordinance and its provisions until Bentsen moved into the city manager’s post. In this way, Bentsen is a central figure in the federal suit in his capacity as both a sheriff’s department and city employee.
On September 16, the court granted the motion to disqualify Aleshire & Wynder as the city’s legal representative, and Aleshire & Wynder submitted its withdrawal intention the following day, but remains, technically, as Hesperia’s legal counsel until the city retains another firm, which it must do under court mandate by October 26. Meanwhile, on October 14, Aleshire & Wynder is scheduled to engage with the U.S. Attorney’s Office, in a settlement conference aimed at bringing the Justice Department’s action against the city to a conclusion prior to trial.
The seriousness with which the situation is viewed by the county was demonstrated by the board of supervisors having been given a briefing on the matter during its closed session with the office of county counsel, the county’s stable of in-house attorneys, during its meeting on Tuesday, October 5.
-Mark Gutglueck

Unverified Report Of A Grim End To The Cho Missing Person Case

The Sentinel has received an unconfirmed report that there has been a break in the Lauren Cho missing person case.
Cho went missing on June 28, 2021, at approximately 5:10 p.m., when she reportedly walked away from the residence where she was staying in the 8600 block of Benmar Trail in Yucca Valley.
Investigators followed all traces and networked with her family and friends in an effort to discover new leads.
On July 24, 2021, sheriff’s department fixed wing aircraft conducted aerial searches of the remote mountain terrain near the scene of her last known whereabouts.
On Saturday, July 31, 2021, at 6:00 a.m., detectives assigned to the Morongo Basin Station and a search and rescue team executed a search warrant in the 8600 block of Benmar Trail. During the search warrant service seven canines searched the last known location where Cho was seen and surrounding unincorporated areas for evidence.
Investigators with San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Specialized Investigations Division were brought in to assist the Morongo Basin Station in the effort to locate Cho, a 30-year-old resident of New Jersey in September.
Based on present indicators and the circumstance, the outcome appears to be grim.

As Deadly Virus Mutates And Advances, Some Parents Want No Precautions In School Settings

As the first round of the coronavirus/COVID-19 pandemic permeated across the globe, beginning in March 2020, schools in San Bernardino County as in all of California discontinued in-class instruction, going to a remote learning model, familiarizing students like never before with electronic forums such as Zoom, and engaging in on-line learning sessions. Those measures were taken out of an abundance of caution, as the coronavirus in its earliest version and initial permutations were proving fatal among a portion of the population.
In general, medical masks were recommended and in time became de rigueur and ultimately mandatory in public places and businesses which were not hit with closure orders. A segment of the population questioned the seriousness of the pandemic, dismissing COVID-19 as just another version of the flu and a not very serious one at that, and claimed that the circumstance was the outgrowth of a governmental hoax perpetrated to trigger panic and hysteria within the population to grease the way for a set of oppressive government-imposed restrictions.
As it turned out, those below the age of majority, most specifically those of junior high school and elementary school age, proved to be particularly resistant to the affliction. Nevertheless, schools remained closed to the end of the 2019-20 school year and throughout the first semester of the 2020-21 school year. Selectively, certain schools began reopening in the spring of 2021, and the lion’s share of school districts throughout California and San Bernardino County prepared for the reopening of schools with the initiation of the late summer/fall semester of the 2021-22 school year.
By the end of 2020, an experimental and, by traditional medical standards, untested vaccine was available. With the dawn of 2021, the vaccine, by virtue of its relatively benign showing within the limited element of the population that braved it, became more widely available and was distributed without cost to the adult population willing to receive it.
In April 2021, just as a significant portion of the adult population was immunized, the Delta version of the coronavirus/COVID malady, the first substantial transmogrification of the disease, hit.
School openings in many venues continued, while in virtually all others, planning toward public school opening with the advent of the 2021-22 school year continued.
Paradoxically, the Delta variant turned out to be far more impactful upon its youthful infectees than the original version of the condition, such that a small percentage of infants, toddlers, children, adolescents and young adults became seriously ill upon contracting the pathosis. Some died.
In this way, the prospect of across-the-board school reopenings and the proximity of millions of students with one another, many of whom were now recognized as vulnerable to the potentially fatal virus, gave public health officials, school officials and government officials tremendous pause as the beginning of the school year in August approached.
The California Public Health Department issued an order, which was refined and updated after the initiation of school in most districts statewide on September 1, mandating that everyone within an enclosed school setting, adults and children over the age of 2 in pre-school through high school, wear a mask. There were limited specified exemptions extending to those with medical conditions or disabilities that made wearing a mask impractical or risky. An exemption applied to everyone during mealtime.
A cross section of parents objected to the mandate, stating it was unnecessary, that it was an imposition on the students, that it ran contrary to the independence of action and thought that should be a principle in American life and which those parents were attempting to instill in their children, that it was an abridgment of the students’ rights, and an effort on the part of the government to brainwash the students and cow them into conformance with government-issued orders and the surrendering of their rights.
A month later, the State of California and Governor Gavin Newsom, who had easily outdistanced an effort to remove him from office during a statewide recall vote on September 14, upped the ante. State officials announced on October 1 that in accordance with the Food and Drug Administration giving approval for the administration of the vaccine to students of junior high school and high school age, students 12 years of age and up will be required to be vaccinated as early as January 1, 2022 and no later than July 1, 2022 in order to attend school. Those officials likened the move to the precautions long in place that require children be vaccinated for measles, mumps and rubella before they can begin school and the more recent requirement that they be vaccinated against pertussis. Some parents expressed disappointment that the order did not immediately extend to kindergarten and grade school students. California officials added that the state will require the COVID vaccine for students in kindergarten through sixth grade upon the federal government giving approval for the provision of the vaccine to children between the ages of 5 and 11,
Some, however, remain highly skeptical of the government’s move to protect the population from either the original coronavirus pandemic – COVID-19 – or its mutations or intensifications, such as the Delta variant.
According to some of those railing against the government’s COVID precaution mandates, the entire effort is a conspiracy by government in conjunction with the major corporations on the planet to bring about “a great reset” which is to move everyone to a worldwide cashless society system tied directly to vaccine passports that in the near future will further entail the addition of a carbon tax to track and trace everywhere that people travel. This will lead to restrictions on permissible movement by the population, these conspiracists maintain. The governmental establishment has been lying about the COVID crisis all along, and is continuously changing its story to effectuate the eventual enslavement of the vast majority of the human population, those who advocate against accepting the restrictions propound. The anti-vaxxers have put out that the government is using manufactured fear to control the populace. All of this is part of a “new-world agenda” to take people’s cars away from them, those saying the COVID pandemic is a hoax maintain, and they assert that the death rates from COVID-19 were and are greatly exaggerated or non-existent. Each piece of the COVID doomsayers’ story does not stand up to common sense or science, the government’s critics hold. Those advocating resistance to the government-imposed restrictions cite early government misstatements minimizing the seriousness of the coronavirus and its spread and that it would not jump from China where it was first detected to the United States, which was quickly and abruptly followed by a reversal that included mandates, martial law and lockdowns, which, they say, was accompanied by governmental assertions that a two-week shutdown of commerce and socializing would stem the spread. The government continuously extended the lockdown in an effort to “flatten the curve” of the rise in the spread of the disease, followed by the creation of a game plan that called for ending the crisis with the advent of a vaccine, those taking issue with the government’s action say. The hospitals were not filled with the sick and dying during the pandemic as the government claimed, the conspiracists maintain, and reports to that effect were “fake news” put out by the mainstream media which was in lockstep with the government. Emergency field hospitals set up to handle an overflow of emergency patients went largely unused, according to those who question the story put out by the government. The public, kept in the dark by virtue of being in lockdown, was unable to discern that there was in reality no crisis as the government’s false narrative claimed because they could not check out for themselves how empty the hospitals actually were, those who deny the government’s sense of alarm say. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention changed the way that death due to coronavirus was calculated, those rejecting the governments representations report. Constantly rising COVID deaths claimed by the government were in reality deaths from other causes such as heart disease, cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes or other life-threatening co-morbidities, they say.
In San Bernardino County, a manifestation of this distrust came at the September 16 Chino Joint Unified School District Board meeting. Board member Andrew Cruz, who was backed by his board colleague James Na, sought to gain majority board support for a resolution that much, if not all of the public effort at the state and local levels to arrest the progress of COVID-19 and its current mutation, the Delta variant, represents “government overreach.”
Cruz’s resolution opposed California’s COVID-19 vaccination mandates, and iterated his belief that “the use of coercion as a means to make individuals submit to vaccination is unacceptable” and that “the district opposes statewide vaccination mandates that put employment at risk and compromise personal freedom.”
There were elements in the crowd who concurred with Cruz, most particularly a group bearing the name Parent Association of Chino Valley, the members of which celebrate “Christian, conservative and family values,” while claiming more than 1,000 members in Chino and Chino Hills. Those with Parent Association of Chino Valley who spoke emphasized that school district staff and the majority of the board they characterized as “liberals” were not listening to their concerns about how the imposition of the mandates were violations of their rights and their children’s rights, and that state and local officials were not considering the potential hazard of the vaccines developed to fight the coronavirus. Some demanded to know whether the district would accept liability if any of their children were harmed by the vaccine.
Within the crowd at the September 15 Chino school board meeting there was an even more numerous contingent of parents who supported the state and local district establishment’s strategy to use masking and eventual vaccination to reduce the spread of the virus and prevent the contagion from hurting or even killing their children.
Ultimately, Cruz’s effort to pass his resolution failed. While it garnered his colleague James Na’s vote, it was opposed by Board President Joe Schaffer, Don Bridge, and Christina Gagnier.
In the fall of 2020 moving into the winter, the original version of the deadly coronavirus – COVID-19 – hit what was once thought to be its deadliest crescendo.
According to San Bernardino County’s Department of Health, as of Wednesday, December 23, 2020, 170,855 of the county’s residents had contracted confirmed cases of COVID-19. As of December 21, 2020 a total of 1,375 county residents had perished from the disease from the onset of the outbreak in February 2020. As of Wednesday, December 23, 2020, 1,407 deaths of county residents had been attributed to the disease. Over the next two days there were 13 COVID-19-related deaths and a jump of 3,246 in the number of those with confirmed cases of the contagion countywide. Those numbers were a respite from what had occurred in the weeks previously. A serious advance of the syndrome took place between December 14 and December 21 inclusive, when 134 of those with the affliction died. That included 52 deaths over a 48-hour period on December 19 and 20. Deaths wholly or partially attributable to COVID-19 in San Bernardino County reached their apex on December 16, when 63 people died. As of Christmas Day 2020, over the previous four days, 55 deaths from the coronavirus had been recorded, a clip of thirteen-and-a-half people per day. That represented a weekly average of 94.5 deaths. Months before that, during the seven days of August 2 to August 9, 2020, inclusive, 129 people died in San Bernardino County.
Yet the statistics for all of 2020 in San Bernardino were tame, compared to what has been ongoing in the last nine-and-one-quarter months.
Following the close of 2020, there was for more than three months a gradual drawdown in the number of COVID-19 deaths, followed by a lull in the crisis, which some attributed to the substantial vaccination rate.
Nevertheless, the advent of the Delta variant has pushed the Coronavirus-affiliated death rate beyond what it had been previously. During the first ten months of the crisis, from February until Christmas 2020, there had been 1,420 virus-related deaths in San Bernardino County, such that the county’s residents were dying from COVID-connected-or-influenced conditions at a rate of roughly 4.25 per day.
As of today, October 8, there have been 5,556 total confirmed COVID-19/Delta variant related deaths in San Bernardino County since the disease penetrated the county in February 2020.
From Christmas Day 2020 to today, San Bernardino County residents have found themselves dying, from the ravages of the original version of COVID-19 and any variants including the more deadly Delta version, at a rate of 14.41 per day. That includes the dip in deaths in the months of January to March span, and the acceleration in morbidity that began in April with the local advent of the Delta variant.
External data is as alarming, particularly as pertains to children.
Across the country, where last year at this time pediatric COVID-19 cases accounted for well under 5 percent of the pandemic’s reach, at present nationwide, 25 percent of the cases are those infecting children. Over 243,000 children are known to have come down with COVID-19 in one of its various forms, including the Delta variant, between September 2 and September 9, 2021, the latest accounting period on children currently available. That represents the second highest number of cases among children in a single week since the pandemic began, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics.
While hospitalization of children for the condition was previously so rare as to be practically unheard of, as of September 29, 2021, 2.4 percent of patients hospitalized for COVID-19 in the United States were children. At this point, Arkansas, Florida, Nebraska and Iowa have discontinued reporting on childhood COVID cases. There have been, as of today, 520 childhood COVID-19 fatalities and rising throughout 46 reporting states, Washington, D.C., Guam and Puerto Rico.
At its September 14 meeting, the Morongo Valley Unified School District Board convened at Joshua Tree Elementary School in Joshua Tree. On the agenda for that meeting was a presentation of the district’s COVID-19 protocols that were to be enunciated by Superintendent Doug Weller and assistant superintendents Sharon Flores, Mike Ghelber, and Amy Woods. The policy extends to a universal masking mandate for kindergartners to 12th grade students that came from on high in Sacramento to schools throughout the state. Woods’ intent was to explain how the district’s failure to enforce the mask requirement would breach not only a legal duty, but also the primary responsibility of educators to protect students. Violation of mandatory public health guidance puts the health and safety of students, staff and their families needlessly at risk, Woods eventually stated, and would carry with it significant legal and financial risks.
Before that, or any official action could be gotten to, however, the board had to deal with a show of protest with regard to that protocol. Present at the meeting was a beefed-up security detail, consisting of San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Sergeant Omar Lastra and deputies Elizabeth Gonzalez and Jose Perez. The trio had been dispatched to the meeting because of reports that parents ready to contest the policy were to be in attendance.
As part of the protest, those parents had refused to don masks. That was problematic because part of the state’s and the district’s COVID protocol is that whenever anyone – children or adults – are indoors on school grounds, they are required to wear masks.
Inside the Joshua Tree Elementary multipurpose room were unmasked parents awaiting the arrival of the school board so that they could make clear their belief that a matter of principle is involved, one pertaining to freedom and the maintenance of rights to be free from government mandates for masking or vaccination or anything else. They were itching to make a case that masks and vaccine represent a health risk – ones that were as grave as the coronavirus itself. There are side effects to the vaccine, they said, and it has not been shown to be safe for children. Moreover, the masks reroute carbon dioxide back into the noses and mouths of those wearing masks, they said.
The standoff continued as the school board members refused to come into the meeting room while the unmasked adults were present. Also present in the room were parents who were not part of the protest and who were masked.
Sergeant Lastra told the protesters that there would be no meeting if those present did not mask up. After a roughly 20 minute delay, with Lastra, Gonzalez and Perez glaring at them, the protesters relented. They did not put on masks, but left.
Some of the protesters, citing principle, said they simply could not put masks on and knuckle under to an illegal and unconstitutional mandate. One, who was prepared to confront the school board members with Benjamin Franklin’s adage that “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety,” suggested the school board and the district staff were cowardly in their unwillingness to be confronted by the protesters.
-Mark Gutglueck

Rialto Beset With Controversy Over Fire & Police Department Surveillance Of City Council

Panicked paralysis has gripped Rialto City Manager Marcus Fuller and Rialto City Attorney Eric Vail, as they are dealing with a thorny issue involving their political masters and unsuccessful candidates for the city council going back nearly two decades. Central to the matter are blackmail and election-swaying efforts by members of the fire and police departments who were seeking to gain leverage in contract negotiations with the city. It is further alleged that former high ranking city officials were knowledgeable of and perhaps even involved in the extortion and efforts to impact voting in Rialto’s municipal elections.

Fuller and Vail are furiously seeking to bring the matter to a quiet close before it breaks into full-blown scandal. A full public airing of the seamy details of what occurred, Fuller and Vail fear, carries with it a substantial possibility that the city’s taxpayers will take an estimated $25 million to $30 million hit.

At the basis of the contretemps is that Rialto Mayor Pro Tem Ed Scott has filed claims totaling $1.15 million against the city where intermittently over the last quarter of a century he has been a member of the city council for nearly 19 years, including the last seven.

According to one of those claims, Rialto police officers and & firefighters have accessed the State of California’s law enforcement database on multiple occasions to obtain confidential information which was used in an attempt to prevent his election and reelection to office as well as for political purposes in opposing the electoral or re-electoral efforts of other members of the city council.

Additional information gleaned by the Sentinel indicates that others competing for berths upon the Rialto City Council or mayor were similarly subjected to having their profiles and personal information contained in what are supposed to be restricted governmental data bases accessed and used for either political use or to dissuade them from engaging in public advocacy.

The claims made by Scott came in sworn statements lodged with the city.

In Rialto, as is the case with all other cities or governmental entities in California, an individual who has suffered damages as a consequence of the action of the city or its employees, must lodge a claim with that entity before taking legal action in court against the governmental entity. The governing board of the jurisdiction, as in the case of a city its city council, can then acknowledge the claim as valid and pay either the claimed amount of damages or a negotiated amount to settle the claim and avoid a lawsuit. Once a claim is rejected, the claimant has six months to file a lawsuit against the city. In the vast majority of cases, claims against cities are rejected, and in the vast majority of the cases where rejections are made, the claimants do not follow up with a lawsuit.

In the case of the claims filed by Scott, one of which pertained to the city’s issuance of a permit for what Scott maintains was botched work on an electrical connection on property he owns in the city unrelated to the police department and fire department personnel accessing information pertaining to him in the California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System, the city council acknowledged receipt of the claims but neither accepted nor rejected them. Instead, the claims have been passed along to Vail, the city’s interim city attorney who has been serving in that capacity since the departure of Fred Galante as city attorney in March 2020.

According to the claim, “On February 16, 2021 I made a verbal complaint to Rialto Police Chief Mark Kling that I had been informed that a confidential informant, a whistle blower who is a current employee of the City of Rialto, had been told by a member of the Rialto Fire Department that he had been involved in investigating myself to determine my residency

and property I owned in Kernville, California and other information related to my personal life and background. In addition, I informed Sean Greyson, acting city manager and fire chief, that such an allegation had been made about the Rialto Fire Department.”

October 8 SBC Sentinel Legal Notices

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR CHANGE OF NAME
CIV SB 2123259
TO ALL INTERESTED PERSONS:
Petitioner BRUCE THOMAS GILSTRAP  filed with this court for a decree changing names as follows:
BRUCE THOMAS GILSTRAP to BRUCE THOMAS BLACK
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: October 15, 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: SEPTEMBER 3, 2021
Lynn M. Poncin
Judge of the Superior Court.
The attorney for Bruce Thomas Gilstrap is:
Cory Briggs
Briggs Law Corporation
99 East C Street, Suite 111
Upland, CA 91786
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel September 17, 24, and October 1 & 8, 2021
FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME
STATEMENT FILE NO-20210008140
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: Motel 6 Barstow Lenwood, 2551 Commerce Parkway, Barstow, CA 92311, Mailing Address: 3237 Vista Pointe, Riverside, CA 92503, Lenwood Lodging LLC, 3237 Vista Pointe, Riverside, CA 92503
Business is Conducted By: A Limited Liability Company
Signed: BY SIGNING BELOW, 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 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ Mahendra Desai
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 08/06/21
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: 07/20/2021
County Clerk, s/ I7122
NOTICE- This fictitious business 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 name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see section 14400 et. Seq. Business & Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 09/03, 09/10, 09/17 & 09/24, 2021
FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME
STATEMENT FILE NO-20210008935
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: Certified Selections, 951 Feather Hollow Court, Chino Hills, CA 91709, Z&S Enterprises Inc, 951 Feather Hollow Court, Chino Hills, CA 91709
Business is Conducted By: A Corporation
Signed: BY SIGNING BELOW, 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 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ Siddique Rahman
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 08/27/21
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: N/A
County Clerk, s/ I1327
NOTICE- This fictitious business 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 name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see section 14400 et. Seq. Business & Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 09/17/21, 09/24/21, 10/01/21, 10/08/21
FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME
STATEMENT FILE NO-20210008897
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: SG Metal Works LLC, 522 W. 1ST Street., Suit F, Rialto, CA 92376, Mailing Address: 8034 Alder Ave, Fontana, CA 92336, SG Metal Works LLC, 8034 Alder Ave, Fontana, CA 92336
Business is Conducted By: A Limited Liability Company
Signed: BY SIGNING BELOW, 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 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ Angelica Arellano
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 08/26/21
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: 02/26/21
County Clerk, s/ I1327
NOTICE- This fictitious business 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 name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see section 14400 et. Seq. Business & Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 09/17/21, 09/24/21, 10/01/21, 10/08/21
FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME
STATEMENT FILE NO-20210009057
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: XSA Investigative Services, 1535 N Third Ave, Upland, CA 91786, Mailing Address: 154 W. Foothill Blvd, STE A355, Upland, CA 91786, Kurt Donham, 1535 N Third Ave, Upland, CA 91786
Business is Conducted By: An Individual
Signed: BY SIGNING BELOW, 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 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ Kurt Donham
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 09/01/21
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: 08/30/21
County Clerk, s/ D5511
NOTICE- This fictitious business 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 name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see section 14400 et. Seq. Business & Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 09/17/21, 09/24/21, 10/01/21, 10/08/21
NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF: BERNARD ANTHONY SIOW
CASE NO. PROSB2100583
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of BERNARD ANTHONY SIOW:
A Petition for Probate has been filed by STEPHANIE L. SIOW in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO,
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that STEPHANIE L. SIOW be appointed as personal representative to administer the estate of the decedent.
THE PETITION requests the decedent’s 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 OCTOBER 12, 2021 2021 at 9:00 a.m. in Dept. No. S35 at Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, 247 West Third Street, San Bernardino, CA 92415, San Bernardino District.
SEPTEMBER 3, 2021
Kimberly Tilley, 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 Stephanie M. Brown
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 September 24, October 1 & October 8, 2021.

T.S. No. 19-20763-SP-CA Title No. 191072098-CA-VOI A.P.N. 1061-201-33-0-000 NOTICE OF TRUSTEE’S SALE. YOU ARE IN DEFAULT UNDER A DEED OF TRUST DATED 04/04/2005. UNLESS YOU TAKE ACTION TO PROTECT YOUR PROPERTY, IT MAY BE SOLD AT A PUBLIC SALE. IF YOU NEED AN EXPLANATION OF THE NATURE OF THE PROCEEDING AGAINST YOU, YOU SHOULD CONTACT A LAWYER. A public auction sale to the highest bidder for cash, (cashier’s check(s) must be made payable to National Default Servicing Corporation), drawn on a state or national bank, a check drawn by a state or federal credit union, or a check drawn by a state or federal savings and loan association, savings association, or savings bank specified in Section 5102 of the Financial Code and authorized to do business in this state; will be held by the duly appointed trustee as shown below, of all right, title, and interest conveyed to and now held by the trustee in the hereinafter described property under and pursuant to a Deed of Trust described below. The sale will be made in an “as is” condition, but without covenant or warranty, expressed or implied, regarding title, possession, or encumbrances, to pay the remaining principal sum of the note(s) secured by the Deed of Trust, with interest and late charges thereon, as provided in the note(s), advances, under the terms of the Deed of Trust, interest thereon, fees, charges and expenses of the Trustee for the total amount (at the time of the initial publication of the Notice of Sale) reasonably estimated to be set forth below. The amount may be greater on the day of sale. Trustor: Monica C Banacky, a widow Duly Appointed Trustee: National Default Servicing Corporation Recorded 04/14/2005 as Instrument No. 2005-0260110 (or Book, Page) of the Official Records of San Bernardino County, CA. Date of Sale: 10/28/2021 at 12:00 PM Place of Sale: At the North Arrowhead Avenue entrance to the County Courthouse, 351 North Arrowhead Avenue, San Bernardino, CA 92401 Estimated amount of unpaid balance and other charges: $601,414.96 Street Address or other common designation of real property: 5070 Via Serena Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91701 A.P.N.: 1061-201-33-0-000 The undersigned Trustee disclaims any liability for any incorrectness of the street address or other common designation, if any, shown above. If no street address or other common designation is shown, directions to the location of the property may be obtained by sending a written request to the beneficiary within 10 days of the date of first publication of this Notice of Sale. If the Trustee is unable to convey title for any reason, the successful bidder’s sole and exclusive remedy shall be the return of monies paid to the Trustee, and the successful bidder shall have no further recourse. The requirements of California Civil Code Section 2923.5(b)/2923.55(c) were fulfilled when the Notice of Default was recorded. NOTICE TO POTENTIAL BIDDERS: If you are considering bidding on this property lien, you should understand that there are risks involved in bidding at a trustee auction. You will be bidding on a lien, not on the property itself. Placing the highest bid at a trustee auction does not automatically entitle you to free and clear ownership of the property. You should also be aware that the lien being auctioned off may be a junior lien. If you are the highest bidder at the auction, you are or may be responsible for paying off all liens senior to the lien being auctioned off, before you can receive clear title to the property. You are encouraged to investigate the existence, priority, and size of outstanding liens that may exist on this property by contacting the county recorder’s office or a title insurance company, either of which may charge you a fee for this information. If you consult either of these resources, you should be aware that the same lender may hold more than one mortgage or deed of trust on the property. NOTICE TO PROPERTY OWNER: The sale date shown on this notice of sale may be postponed one or more times by the mortgagee, beneficiary, trustee, or a court, pursuant to Section 2924g of the California Civil Code. The law requires that information about trustee sale postponements be made available to you and to the public, as a courtesy to those not present at the sale. If you wish to learn whether your sale date has been postponed, and, if applicable, the rescheduled time and date for the sale of this property, you may call or visit this Internet Web site www.ndscorp.com/sales, using the file number assigned to this case 19-20763-SP-CA. Information about postponements that are very short in duration or that occur close in time to the scheduled sale may not immediately be reflected in the telephone information or on the Internet Web site. The best way to verify postponement information is to attend the scheduled sale. Date: 09/16/2021 National Default Servicing Corporation c/o Tiffany & Bosco, P.A., its agent, 1455 Frazee Road, Suite 820 San Diego, CA 92108 Toll Free Phone: 888-264-4010 Sales Line 855-219-8501; Sales Website: www.ndscorp.com By: Rachael Hamilton, Trustee Sales Representative 09/24/2021, 10/01/2021, 10/08/2021 CPP351474
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR CHANGE OF NAME CASE
NUMBER CIVSB2123514
TO  ALL INTERESTED PERSONS: Petitioner:  Ashley Williams; Dewayne Cannon filed with this court for a decree changing names as follows:
Elijah harlem Williams to Dewayne Kevin Cannon Jr.
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: 11/8/2021
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: 9/8/2021
Lynn M. Poncin
Judge of the Superior Court.
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 9/24/2021, 10/1/2021, 10/8/2021, 10/15/2021
SUMMONS – (CITACION JUDICIAL)
CASE NUMBER (NUMERO DEL CASO) CVMV2000661
NOTICE TO JASLAYA EBONY WALKER; JESSICA WALKER; and Does 1 to 10
YOU ARE BEING SUED BY PLAINTIFF:
(LO ESTA DEMANDANDO EL DEMANDANTE):
DANIEL KINCAID
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):
RIVERSIDE SUPERIOR COURT
13800 HEACOCK ST., STE D201, MORENO VALLEY, CA 92553
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):
WILLIAM C. KENNEDY, ESQ., SBN: 076992 LAW OFFICE OF KENNEDY & ASSOCIATES 3576 ARLINGTON AVENUE, SUITE 304
RIVERSIDE, CA 92506
Telephone: 951-784-8920
DATE (Fecha): 12/3/2020
Clerk (Secretario), by V. Reyes
Published in the The San Bernardino County Sentinel on: 9/24/2021, 10/1/2021, 10/8/2021, 10/15/2021

FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME
STATEMENT FILE NO-20210009661
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: ETE Solar, 1155 S. Milliken Ave, Suite E, Ontario, CA 91761, Earthtech Enterprise Inc, 3400 Cottage Way, Ste G2 3450, Sacramento, CA 95825
Business is Conducted By: A Corporation
Signed: BY SIGNING BELOW, 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 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ Vanessa Pan
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 09/23/21
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: N/A
County Clerk, s/ D5511
NOTICE- This fictitious business 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 name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see section 14400 et. Seq. Business & Professions Code).
09/24/21, 10/01/21, 10/08/21, 10/15/21

FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME
STATEMENT FILE NO-20210009528
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: ANOKI, 12824 Coriander Ct, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91739, Natively Inc, 12824 Coriander Ct, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91739
Business is Conducted By: A Corporation
Signed: BY SIGNING BELOW, 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 17913) I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ Dana Green
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on:09/20/21
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: 08/30/21
County Clerk, s/ D5511
NOTICE- This fictitious business 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 name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see section 14400 et. Seq. Business & Professions Code).
09/24/21, 10/01/21, 10/08/21, 10/15/21

FBN 20210009751
The following person is doing business as: BLUE SKY MASSAGE 1964 W. NINTH ST. SUITE C UPLAND, CA 91786: MING LI 1962 CANOPY LANE LA VERNE, CA 91750
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/ MING LI
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 09/241/2021
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 09/24/2021, 10/01/2021, 10/08/2021, 10/15/2021
APN: 0225-391-01-0-000 T.S. No.: 20-60065-ca Property Address: 6116 ROBERTS PL, RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91739 NOTICE OF TRUSTEE’S SALE YOU ARE IN DEFAULT UNDER A DEED OF TRUST DATED 2/22/2007. UNLESS
YOU TAKE ACTION TO PROTECT YOUR PROPERTY, IT MAY BE SOLD AT A PUBLIC SALE. IF YOU NEED AN EXPLANATION OF THE NATURE OF THE PROCEEDING AGAINST YOU, YOU SHOULD CONTACT A LAWYER. A public auction sale to the highest bidder for cash, cashier’s check drawn on a state or national bank, check drawn by a state or federal credit union, or a check drawn by a state or federal savings and loan association, or savings association, or savings bank specified in Section 5102 of the Financial Code and authorized to do business in this state will be held by the duly appointed trustee as shown below, of all right, title, and interest conveyed to and now held by the trustee in the hereinafter described property under and pursuant to a Deed of Trust described below. The sale will be made, but without covenant or warranty, expressed or implied, regarding title, possession, or encumbrances, to pay the remaining principal sum of the note(s) secured by the Deed of Trust, with interest and late charges thereon, as provided in the note(s), advances, under the terms of the Deed of Trust, interest thereon, fees, charges and expenses of the Trustee for the total amount (at the time of the initial publication of the Notice of Sale) reasonably estimated to be set forth below. The amount may be greater on the day of sale.

Trustor: TRACIE GREATHOUSE Duly Appointed Trustee: DIRECT DEFAULT SERVICES, LLC Recorded 2/23/2007 as Instrument No. 2007-0117710 in book , page of Official Records in the office of the Recorder of San Bernardino County, California, Date of Sale: 10/25/2021 at 1:00 PM Place of Sale: Near the front steps leading up to the City of Chino Civic Center, 13220 Central Avenue, Chino, CA 91710 Amount of unpaid balance and other charges: $114,929.09 Street Address or other common designation of real property: 6116 ROBERTS PL RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91739 A.P.N.: 0225-391-01-0-000 The undersigned Trustee disclaims any liability for any incorrectness of the street address or other common designation, if any, shown above. If no street address or other common designation is shown, directions to the location of the property may be obtained by sending a written request to the beneficiary within 10 days of the date of first publication of this Notice of Sale.
NOTICE TO POTENTIAL BIDDERS: If you are considering bidding on this property lien, you should understand that there are risks involved in bidding at a trustee auction. You will be bidding on a lien, not on the property itself. Placing the highest bid at a trustee auction does not automatically entitle you to free and clear ownership of the property. You should also be aware that the lien being auctioned off may be a junior lien. If you are the highest bidder at the auction, you are or may be responsible for paying off all liens senior to the lien being auctioned off, before you can receive clear title to the property. You are encouraged to investigate the existence, priority, and size of outstanding liens that may exist on this property by contacting the county recorder’s office or a title insurance company, either of which may charge you a fee for this information. If you consult either of these resources, you should be aware that the same lender may hold more than one mortgage or deed of trust on the property. NOTICE TO PROPERTY OWNER: The sale date shown on this notice of sale may be postponed one or more times by the mortgagee, beneficiary, trustee, or a court, pursuant to Section 2924g of the California Civil Code. The law requires that information about trustee sale postponements be made available to you and to the public, as a courtesy to those not present at the sale. If you wish to learn whether your sale date has been postponed, and, if applicable, the rescheduled time and date for the sale of this property, you may call (714) 986-9342 or visit this Internet Website www.superiordefault.com, using the file number assigned to this case 20-60065-CA. Information about postponements that are very short in duration or that occur close in time to the scheduled sale may not immediately be reflected in the telephone information or on the Internet Web site. The best way to verify postponement information is to attend the scheduled sale. For sales conducted after January 1, 2021: NOTICE TO TENANT: You may have a right to purchase this property after the trustee auction pursuant to Section 2924m of the California Civil Code. If you are an “eligible tenant buyer,” you can purchase the property if you match the last and highest bid placed at the trustee auction. If you are an “eligible bidder,” you may be able to purchase the property if you exceed the last and highest bid placed at the trustee auction. There are three steps to exercising this right of purchase. First, 48 hours after the date of the trustee sale, you can call (714) 986-9342, or visit this internet website www.superiordefault.com, using the file number assigned to this case 20-60065-CA to find the date on which the trustee’s sale was held, the amount of the last and highest bid, and the address of the trustee. Second, you must send a written notice of intent to place a bid so that the trustee receives it no more than 15 days after the trustee’s sale. Third, you must submit a bid so that the trustee receives it no more than 45 days after the trustee’s sale. If you think you may qualify as an “eligible tenant buyer” or “eligible bidder,” you should consider contacting an attorney or appropriate real estate professional immediately for advice regarding this potential right to purchase. Date: 9/13/2021 Trustee Sales Information: Sale Line: (714) 986-9342 www.superiordefault.com by: Gisela Clark, Authorized Signatory for Trustee Direct Default Services 3670 N Rancho Drive, Suite 101 Las Vegas, NV 89130 TS# 20-60065-ca SDI-21894) Published: 10/01/21, 10/08/21, 10/15/21
OTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF:
AGNOLIA DAVIS
Case NO. PROSB2100347
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of AGNOLIA DAVIS
A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by WHITNEY DAVIS in the Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that WHITNEY DAVIS 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. No. S37 at 9:00 a.m. on October 28, 2021 at Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, 247 West 3rd St, San Bernardino, CA 92415-0212, Branch Name: San Bernardino Justice Center
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:
THOMAS M. ALEXANDER, JR.
THOMAS ALEXANDER LAW OFFICES
226 E. SIXTH STREET,
BEAUMONT, CA 92223
Telephone No: (310) 860-7678
Published in the SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY SENTINEL on:
10/01/21, 10/08/21, 10/15/21

NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF: BERNARD ANTHONY SIOW SR.
CASE NO. PROSB2100583
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of BERNARD ANTHONY SIOW SR.:
A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by TAYLOR FRANCES SIOW in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that TAYLOR FRANCES SIOW be appointed as personal representatives to administer the estate of the decedent.
THE PETITION requests the decedent’s 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. S-35 at 9:00 a.m. on NOVEMBER 22, 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 10/01, 10/08 & 10/15, 2021.
NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF: ANASTACIA BARRIOS GONZALES
CASE NO. PROSB2100675
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of ANASTACIA BARRIOS GONZALES:
A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by PHILLIP GONZALES in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that PHILLIP GONZALES 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-36 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 10/01, 10/08 & 10/15, 2021.

NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF: EVAMARIE D. SUMNER
CASE NO. PROSB2100635
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of EVAMARIE D. SUMNER:
A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by AUBREY MINA SUMNER in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that AUBREY MINA SUMNER 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-36 at 9:00 a.m. on OCTOBER 20, 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 10/01, 10/08 & 10/15, 2021.

NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF: MARY LOU BARAJAS
CASE NO. PROSB2100554
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of MARY LOU BARAJAS:
A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by LISA MARIE ECTOR in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that LISA MARIE ECTOR 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-36 at 9:00 a.m. on NOVEMBER 1, 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 10/01, 10/08 & 10/15, 2021.

NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF: MARY LOU BARAJAS
CASE NO. PROSB2100554
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of MARY LOU BARAJAS:
A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by LISA MARIE ECTOR in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that LISA MARIE ECTOR 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-36 at 9:00 a.m. on NOVEMBER 1, 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 10/01, 10/08 & 10/15, 2021.

NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF: HEINZ LINSER
CASE NO. PROSB2100676
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of HEINZ LINSER:
A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by CARA RENEE MORRIS in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that CARA RENEE MORRIS 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-36 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 10/01, 10/08 & 10/15, 2021.

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. PROSB2100733
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.

FBN 20210008851
The following person is doing business as: HIGH DESERT WOOD WORKS 1146 E. CONGRESS ST. SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92408 ( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO); BELEN NAVARRO 1146 E. CONGRESS ST. SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92408
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/ BELEN NAVARRO, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 08/25/2021
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 09/17/2021, 09/24/2021, 10/01/2021, 10/08/2021 CNBB36202101IR

FBN 20210008667
The following person is doing business as: YUNNI CLEANING SERVICES 494 S. MACY ST. SPC 51 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 ( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO); EUNICE FLORES 494 S. MACY ST. SPC 51 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/ EUNICE FLORES, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 08/19/2021
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 09/17/2021, 09/24/2021, 10/01/2021, 10/08/2021 CNBB36202102IR

FBN 20210009025
The following person is doing business as: VALLEY WHOLESALE 17921 VALLEY BLVD. STE D BLOOMINGTON, CA 92316 ( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO); SAMUEL CAVE 17921 VALLEY BLVD. STE D BLOOMINGTON, CA 92316
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/ SAMUEL CAVE, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 08/31/2021
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 09/17/2021, 09/24/2021, 10/01/2021, 10/08/2021 CNBB36202103IR

FBN 20210009024
The following person is doing business as: QIC REG 17921 VALLEY BLVD. STE D BLOOMINGTO, CA 92316 ( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO); SAMUEL CAVE 17921 VALLEY BLVD. STE D BLOOMINGTON, CA 92316
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/ SAMUEL CAVE, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 08/31/2021
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 09/17/2021, 09/24/2021, 10/01/2021, 10/08/2021 CNBB36202104IR

FBN 20210009022
The following person is doing business as: ISLAS PROCESSING AND ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES 8200 HAVEN AVE SUITE 210B RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730 ( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO); DULCE K DELGADO 8200 HAVEN AVE SUITE 210B 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: 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/ BDULCE K DELGADO, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 08/31/2021
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 09/17/2021, 09/24/2021, 10/01/2021, 10/08/2021 CNBB36202105MT

FBN 20210008914
The following person is doing business as: MK APPLIANCES 117 E. RIALTO AVE RIALTO, CA 92376 ( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO); MARIO MARQUEZ VALDEZ 117 E RIALTO AVE 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/ MARIO MARQUEZ VALDEZ, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 08/26/2021
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 09/17/2021, 09/24/2021, 10/01/2021, 10/08/2021 CNBB36202106MT

FBN 20210008854
The following person is doing business as: INLAND CASH INVESTORS 1551 E MARSHALL BLVD UNIT B SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404 ( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO); PHILLIP R HERNANDEZ JR. 1551 E MARSHALL BLVD UNIT B SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404; JOSEPH A HERNANDEZ 1551 E MARSHALL BVD UNIT B SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404
The business is conducted by: A GENERAL PARTNERSHIP
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/ PHILLIP R. HERNANDEZ JR., GENERAL PARTNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 08/25/2021
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 09/17/2021, 09/24/2021, 10/01/2021, 10/08/2021 CNBB36202107MT

FBN 20210008696
The following person is doing business as: L & M TRUCKING 6111 N GEREMANDER AVE RIALTO, CA 92377 ( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO); LEONCIO G MONDRAGON 6111 N GEREMANDER AVE RIALTO, CA 92377
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/ LEONCIO G. MONDRAGON, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 08/20/2021
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 09/17/2021, 09/24/2021, 10/01/2021, 10/08/2021 CNBB36202108MT

FBN 20210008788
The following person is doing business as: AMERICAN VETERAN HOUSIN, INC 7696 ALTA VISTA HIGHLAND, CA 92346 ( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO); AMERICAN VETERAN HOUSING INC. 7696 ALTA VISTA HIGHLAND, CA 92346
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/ ERIC WOOLRIDGE, PRESIDENT
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 08/24/2021
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 09/17/2021, 09/24/2021, 10/01/2021, 10/08/2021 CNBB36202109MT

FBN 20210008882
The following person is doing business as: SIERRA LAKE CLEANERS 16953 SIERRA LAKE KWY #109 FONTANA, CA 92336 ( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO); THE TRABUCO, INC 15 HIDDEN CREEK LN LAGUNA HILLS, CA 92653
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/ JEAN H. CHNG, PRESIDENT
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 08/26/2021
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 09/17/2021, 09/24/2021, 10/01/2021, 10/08/2021 CNBB36202110MT

FBN 20210008998
The following person is doing business as: ASAP QUALITY COMMERCIAL CLEANING SERVICES 52808 LITTLE MOUNTAIN DRIVE SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92407( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO); ANTONIO GREENWOOD 52808 LITTLE MOUNTAIN DRIVE SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92407
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/ ANTONIO GREENWOOD, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 08/30/2021
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 09/17/2021, 09/24/2021, 10/01/2021, 10/08/2021 CNBB36202111MT

FBN 20210008588
The following person is doing business as: SUPREME LIGHTNING 1615 W HOLLY STREET RIALTO, CA 92376 ( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO); RUBEN A VILLANUEVA 1615 W HOLLY STREET 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/ RUBEN A. VILLANUEVA, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 08/25/2021
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 09/17/2021, 09/24/2021, 10/01/2021, 10/08/2021 CNBB36202113MT

FBN 20210009029
The following person is doing business as: BETANCO CONSTRUCTION & REMODELING 9750 TULLOCK CT BLOOMINGTON, CA 92316( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO); MARVIN C BETANCO PEREZ 9750 TULLOCK CT BLOOMINGTON, CA 92316; NANCY F GARCIA SOTO 9750 TULLOCK CT BLOOMINGTON, CA 92316
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/ MARVIN C. BETANCO PEREZ, HUSBAND
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 08/31/2021
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 09/17/2021, 09/24/2021, 10/01/2021, 10/08/2021 CNBB36202112MT

FBN 20210009292
The following person is doing business as: GRUPO PANTERA AUTO INSURANCE & SERVICES 2816 W. RIALTO AVE RIALTO, CA 92376( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO); PANAMERICA INCOME TAX AND INSURANCE SERVICES II 1175 N UNRUH AVE LA PUENTE, CA 91744
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/ JORGE ANTONIO CAMPOS, CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 09/10/2021
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 09/17/2021, 09/24/2021, 10/01/2021, 10/08/2021 CNBB36202113EM
FBN 20210008137
The following person is doing business as: MORA’S DEALS ON WHEELS 17921 VALLEY BLVD. SUITE C BLOOMINGTON, CA 92316 ( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO); XOCHITL J MORA 17921 VALLEY BLVD. SUITE C BLOOMINGTON, CA 92316
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/ XOCHITL MORA, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 08/06/2021
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
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 08/20/2021, 08/27/2021, 09/03/2021, 09/10/2021 CNBB30202101IR

FBN 20210008129
The following person is doing business as: MELCHOR’S GARAGE DOORS 325 E. 3RD ST. RIALTO, CA 92376 ( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO); CHRISTIAN J MELCHOR 325 E. 3RD ST. 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/ CHRISTIAN J. MELCHOR, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 08/06/2021
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
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 08/20/2021, 08/27/2021, 09/03/2021, 09/10/2021 CNBB30202102IR

FBN 20210008122
The following person is doing business as: AVILEZ AUTO BODY 10078 CLAREMONT AVE. BLOOMINGTON, CA 92316 ( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO);[ MAILING ADDRESS 10701 CEDAR AVE SP 206 BLOOMINGTON, CA 92316]; JEREMY W FIGLEY 10078 CLAREMONT AVE BLOOMINGTON, CA 92316
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/ JEREMY W. FIGLEY, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 08/06/2021
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
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 08/20/2021, 08/27/2021, 09/03/2021, 09/10/2021 CNBB30202103IR

FBN 20210008139
The following person is doing business as: AGUILAR’S TRUCKING 16170 OWNE ST FONTANA, CA 92335 ( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO); CESAR I AGUILAR 16170 OWNE ST FONTANA, CA 92335
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/ CESAR I AGUILAR, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 08/06/2021
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
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 08/20/2021, 08/27/2021, 09/03/2021, 09/10/2021 CNBB30202104IR

FBN 20210008213
The following person is doing business as: RAMO’S TIRE SERVICES 1486 W. 11TH ST. #4 POMONA, CA 91766 ( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO); JESUS R GAXIOLA 1486 W. 11TH ST. #4 POMONA, CA 91766
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: JUL 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/ JESUS R. GAXIOLA, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 08/09/2021
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 08/20/2021, 08/27/2021, 09/03/2021, 09/10/2021 CNBB30202105IR

FBN 20210008189
The following person is doing business as: HERITAGE CUSTOM POOLS & DESIGN 8780 19TH ST. #278 ALTA LOMA, CA 91701 ( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO); DREAMSCAPES ENTERPRIZES, INC. 8780 19TH ST. #278 ALTA LOMA, CA 91701
The business is conducted by: A CORPORATION
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: MAR 27, 2020
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/ SAMUEL MILNE, CEO
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 08/09/2021
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 08/20/2021, 08/27/2021, 09/03/2021, 09/10/2021 CNBB30202106IR

FBN 20210007997
The following person is doing business as: ONE WAY CONSULTANTS 1014 N WATERMAN AVE UNIT D SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 ( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO);[ MAILING ADDRESS 1883 W ROYAL HUNTE DR. SUITE 200A CEDAR CITY, CA 84720]; NEW CREATION, LLC 1883 W ROYAL HUNTE DR. SUITE 200A CEDAR CITY, CA 84720
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/ ANTHONY MARTINEZ, MANAGING MEMBER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 08/04/2021
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 08/20/2021, 08/27/2021, 09/03/2021, 09/10/2021 CNBB30202107MT

FBN 20210007643
The following person is doing business as: PARAMOUNT WINDOWS & DOORS 723 W MILL STREET SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92410 ( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO); AKAL SAHI INC 1817 THOMAS CT MODESTO, CA 95355
The business is conducted by: A CORPORATION
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: JUL 15, 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/ HARSIMRANJIT BOHGUNH, SECRETARY
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 07/27/2021
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 08/20/2021, 08/27/2021, 09/03/2021, 09/10/2021 CNBB30202108MT

FBN 20210007942
The following person is doing business as: GOLDEN AMERICA INVESTMENT CO 2287 LERONA AVE ROWLAND HEIGHTS, CA 91748 ( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO); ESTEFANI C LIAOU 2287 LERONA AVE ROWLAND HEIGHTS, CA 91748
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/ ESTEFANI C. LIAOU, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 08/03/2021
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
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 08/20/2021, 08/27/2021, 09/03/2021, 09/10/2021 CNBB30202109MT

FBN 20210008464
The following person is doing business as: GAREY TEST ONLY 2580 N GAREY AVE B POMONA, CA 91767 ( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO); JUAN RAMON MARTINEZ 11448 BASYE ST EL MONTE, CA 91732
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/ JUAN RAMON MARTINEZ, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 08/16/2021
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 08/20/2021, 08/27/2021, 09/03/2021, 09/10/2021 CNBB30202110CH
FBN 20210009434
The following person is doing business as: GERMAN’S AUTO REPAIR 544 W. 1ST ST. RIALTO, CA 92376;( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO);[ MAILING ADDRESS 2075 W. RIALTO AVE. SPC 7 SAN BEERNARDINO, CA 92376]; SARA T RAMIREZ 2075 W. RIALTO AVE. SPC 7 SAN BERNARDINO, 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/ SARA T. RAMIREZ, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 09/16/2021
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 09/24/2021, 10/01/2021, 10/08/2021, 10/15/2021 CNBB37202112IR

FBN 20210008915
The following person is doing business as: A OMEGA BRAND 16331 CONSTUCTION CIRLE IRVINE, CA 92606;( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO); A OMEGA TERMITE & CONSTRUCTION CORP. 8502 EAST CHAPMAN AVE SUITE 203 ORANGE, CA 92869
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/ VICTOR HERRERA, SECRETARY
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 08/26/2021
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 09/24/2021, 10/01/2021, 10/08/2021, 10/15/2021 CNBB37202111IR

FBN 20210009242
The following person is doing business as: CHINO CONCRETE PUMPING 14414 FROSTBURG AVE CHINO, CA 91710;( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO);[ MAILING ADDRESS 1301 S. GIBBS ST. POMONA, CA 91766]; MIGUEL A RODRIGUEZ-IBANEZ 1301 S. GIBBS ST. POMONA, CA 91766
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL.
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: JAN 26, 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/ MIGUEL A. RODRIGUEZ-IBANEZ, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 09/09/2021
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 09/24/2021, 10/01/2021, 10/08/2021, 10/15/2021 CNBB37202110IR

FBN 20210009358
The following person is doing business as: MAG INVESTMENTS SOLUTIONS 6713 HOMAN ST CHINO, CA 91710;( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO);JAIME E MILLAN DEL SALTO 6713 HOMAN ST CHINO, CA 91710
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/ JAIME E. MILLAN SALTO, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 09/14/2021
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 09/24/2021, 10/01/2021, 10/08/2021, 10/15/2021 CNBB37202109MT

FBN 20210009448
The following person is doing business as: SUNRISE PLUMBING 300 W OLIVE ST SUITE B COLTON, CA 92324;( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO);ANDREW J BORCSA 300 W OLIVE ST SUITE B 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/ ANDREW J. BORCSA, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 09/16/2021
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 09/24/2021, 10/01/2021, 10/08/2021, 10/15/2021 CNBB37202108MT

FBN 20210009185
The following person is doing business as: TIP TOP TREE CARE 11217 MARYVNE ST EL MONTE, CA 91733;( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO);PEDRO SANDOVAL JR. 11217 MARYVINE ST EL MONTE, CA 91733
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL.
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: JUN 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/ PEDRO SANDOVAL JR., OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 09/08/2021
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
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 09/24/2021, 10/01/2021, 10/08/2021, 10/15/2021 CNBB37202107IR

FBN 20210009494
The following person is doing business as: AA & A KINGS 1027 E. ACACIA STREET ONTARIO, CA 91761;( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO)[ MAILING ADDRESS 1038 ALLEN AVE, APT. 3 GLENDALE, CA 91201];ALBERT VARDUMYAN 1027 E ACACIA ST ONTARIO, CA 91761
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL.
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: JUL 29, 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/ ALBERT VARDUMYAN., OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 09/17/2021
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 09/24/2021, 10/01/2021, 10/08/2021, 10/15/2021 CNBB37202106AC

FBN 20210009129
The following person is doing business as: GGG & SOA TRANSPORT. 925 S RIVERSIDE AVE APT. #5 RIALTO, CA 92376;( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO);GERARDO G JR GALVEZ 925 S RIVERSIDE AVE APT #5 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/ GERARDO G JR GALVEZ, OWNER
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
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 09/24/2021, 10/01/2021, 10/08/2021, 10/15/2021 CNBB37202105IR

FBN 20210009329
The following person is doing business as: ALPHA RUNNERZ TRANSPORT. 1769 N VISTA AVE RIALTO, CA 92376;( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO); EDWARD VALENZUELA 1769 N VISTA AVE 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/ EDWARD VALENZUELA, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 09/13/2021
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 09/24/2021, 10/01/2021, 10/08/2021, 10/15/2021 CNBB37202104IR

FBN 20210009343
The following person is doing business as: J & J FASHION. 516 W FLORA ST SANTA ANA, CA 91762;[ MAILING ADDRESS 311 W CIVIC CENTER DR STE B SANTA ANA, CA 92701];( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO); CRISTAL LOPEZ 516 FLORA 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: 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/ CRISTAL LOPEZ, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 09/13/2021
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 09/24/2021, 10/01/2021, 10/08/2021, 10/15/2021 CNBB37202103CV

FBN 20210009073
The following person is doing business as: HANDMADE PAPER ART. 10155 CLOVER DR OAK HILLS, CA 92344; [ MAILING ADDRESS 311 W CIVIC CENTER DR STE B SANTA ANA, CA 92701]; ( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO); ERNESTO AVIÑA 10155 CLOVER DR OAK HILLS CALIFO, 92344.
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/ ERNESTO AVIÑA, OWNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 09/01/2021
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 09/24/2021, 10/01/2021, 10/08/2021, 10/15/2021 CNBB37202102CV

FBN 20210009101
The following person is doing business as: MARISCOS LUMBRE. 10269 STAFFORD ST RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91701;( PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO); CHRISTIAN A MARQUEZ 10269 STAFFORD ST RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91701; ARTURO JR O MARQUEZ 10269 STAFFORD ST RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91701; REBECCA MARQUEZ 10269 STAFFORD ST RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91701
The business is conducted by: A GENERAL PARTNERSHIP.
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/ CHRISTIAN A MARQUEZ, PARTNER
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: SEPTEMBER 02, 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 09/24/2021, 10/01/2021, 10/08/2021, 10/15/2021 CNBB37202101CV

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

Supervisors Pay Reduction And Term Limiting Measure K Ruled Unenforceable

By Mark Gutglueck
Measure K, which called for a drastic overhaul of county government by reducing the total compensation of county supervisors and limiting them to a single four-year term, is unenforceable despite the county’s voters having passed it by a two-to-one margin in the November 2020 election, a Superior Court Judge ruled this week.
Despite the ruling by Judge Donald Alvarez preventing either of the key provisions in the reform measure from being put into place, there was a silver lining for the Red Brennan Group, the government reform organization that sponsored the initiative, in that Judge Alvarez rejected the contention of the board of supervisors that the county’s voters, at the time the initiative was passed, did not have the authority to reduce their pay. It now remains to be seen whether an alteration of state law that has occurred in the interim will prevent voters from imposing salary and benefit reductions on the supervisors using a revamped referendum.
Unclear is whether the Red Brennan Group will revisit the issue in the form of a stripped down measure in the upcoming election cycle, one that will confine itself to the pay-reduction proposal. Moreover, language in Judge Alvarez’s ruling suggested that a separate measure limiting the supervisors to two terms rather than a single term in office would very likely pass constitutional muster.
The Red Brennan Group qualified Measure K for the ballot, sponsored the campaign for its passage and mounted a legal defense of the measure when the board of supervisors last year sued their own clerk of the board to prevent it from being implemented. The grassroots group’s leadership is now moving toward making an appeal of Judge Alvarez’s ruling, while contemplating whether it will go back to the voters in 2022 with another county government reform initiative or set of initiatives.
The Red Brennan Group pursued placing Measure K on the 2020 ballot, eight years after the late Kiernan “Red” Brennan led a similar county government reform effort, the centerpiece of which was a pay-and-benefits reduction initiative, Measure R, passed by the voters in the November 2012 election. Despite Measure R’s passage, it did not go into effect because a competing “reform” measure that had been placed on the ballot by the board of supervisors, Measure Q, gathered more votes in the 2012 election.
In the last part of 2019 and the first several months of 2020, the Red Brennan Group, a group of government reform activists which had formed following Brennan’s 2013 death and which was named in his honor, acting in conjunction with Nadia Renner, succeeded in gathering 75,132 signatures of county voters to put a reform initiative similar to 2012’s Measure R on the November 2020 ballot. The proposed measure called for reducing the board members to part-time lawmakers, providing them with an annual salary and benefit package of $60,000 and limiting them to a single four-year term on the board. After those signatures and petitions were provided to the San Bernardino County Registrar of Voters in March 2020 and deemed to be sufficient to put an initiative, which was ultimately designated as Measure K, on the November 2020 ballot, the board of supervisors attempted to repeat what had occurred in 2012 by using its power as an elected body to place an alternative initiative on the ballot, one which was designated by the San Bernardino County Registrar of Voters as Measure J.
Measure J was billed as a reform measure that would adjust certain outdated language used in the county charter and also set the board members’ individual compensation packages at $290,000. Measure J further replicated an existing limitation of three four-year terms on supervisors.
It was the supervisors’ collective hope that just as the alternate reform measure that the supervisors had put on the ballot in 2012 had outperformed the measure sponsored by Red Brennan in that election, their measure in 2020, designated by the registrar of voters as Measure J, would likewise gather more support than Measure K, and thus keep the pay reductions in Measure K from going into effect.
As it turned out, however, Measure K did much better at the polls than did Measure J. Measure K 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.
According to the final certified election results released by the San Bernardino County Registrar of Voters, Measure J passed, with 378,964 votes or 50.72 percent of the 747,188 votes cast supporting it and 368,224 or 49.28 percent opposed.
Under state law, a conflict between the provisions of two measures simultaneously adopted by the voters is resolved by implementing the provisions of the winning measure that gets the most votes and disregarding the conflicting provisions of a winning measure that gets fewer votes. This principle was applied in 2012 with regard to the conflicting provisions of measures Q and R. After the November 2020 election had concluded, expectations were that Measure K’s provisions – consisting of limiting supervisors to a total annual compensation of $60,000 and a single four-year term – would by virtue of the greater number of votes it received trump Measure J’s provisions allowing a supervisor a $290,000 per year stipend including salary and benefits and the option of serving three four-year terms, subject to the will of the voters in three separate elections.
Once 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 or Renner, 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 what “the single subject rule” pertaining to voter initiatives and that “Measure K must not be implemented because it does not embrace a single subject.”
A hearing on the petition for a writ of mandate was held on December 4, 2020 before San Bernardino Superior Court Judge David Cohn.
Hertz, Sutton and Sanders pressed Judge Cohn to grant their motion for a temporary restraining order to halt the implementation of Measure K while the petition for a writ of mandate was being litigated.
The Red Brennan Group, which has been authorized by Measure K’s official proponent, Renner, to defend her interests, was present at the hearing in the form of its attorney Aaron Burden. Also in attendance was attorney Cory Briggs, representing the Inland Oversight Committee. Both Burden and Briggs, on behalf of their clients, had drafted and submitted motions to intervene as defendants in the case. Judge Cohn, initially, held the position that neither Burden nor Briggs nor Renner nor the Red Brennan Group nor the Inland Oversight Committee were parties involved in the matter, as the board of supervisors’ suit is against the clerk of the board, and as such they did not have status to involve themselves in the proceedings. The petition for a writ of mandate requested that the court order Monell “not to take any actions that would cause the implementation of Measure K’s provisions.”
Judge Cohn on December 4, 2020 appeared poised to rule in favor of the board of supervisors and grant the temporary restraining order. When, however, Briggs asserted there was a question as to whether the court had jurisdiction in interfering with a matter already decided by a vote of the people, Judge Cohn balked, thereafter delaying his decision, and he gave both Burden and Briggs an opportunity to file by Friday, December 11, briefs supporting why the Red Brennan Group’s and the Inland Oversight Committee’s motions to intervene should be granted, allowing them a seat at the table to argue the case against the petition for a writ of mandate’s request that Measure K be prevented from going into effect. Judge Cohn gave Hertz, Sutton and Sanders until Monday, December 14, 2020 to submit a brief as to why Measure K is to be stayed.
It was the Red Brennan Group’s position that upon the election results being certified, voter-mandated Measure K became a county ordinance, and, accordingly, the San Bernardino County Office of County Counsel, the county’s in-house stable of lawyers headed by County Counsel Michelle Blakemore, was obligated to defend both Measure K, on behalf of the voters who passed it, and Monell, as the clerk of the board and a county employee. Blakemore and the office of county counsel, however, did not with alacrity undertake to defend either in court filings or in open court discussion.
The result, the Red Brennan Group maintained, was that “an initiative approved by over 66% of county voters is being ignored by the public servants sworn to protect the voters’ interests.”
On December 14, 2020, Judge Cohn, in accordance with settled law and the Red Brennan Group’s status as the proponent of Measure K, approved the Red Brennan Group’s motion to intervene. He simultaneously found that the Inland Oversight did not have status to intervene in the proceedings.
Thereupon the Red Brennan Group’s attorney, Aaron Burden, immediately followed with a preemptory 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 Alvarez for his consideration.
After the passage of more than nine months and the consideration of a multitude of briefings, Judge Alvarez this week concluded that Measure K should not be implemented.
In his analysis of the county’s case against Measure K, Alvarez noted that board was contesting the two major provisions in Measure K, those being the salary/benefits/total compensation limitation to $60,000 per year and the single four-year term limit on holding the position of county supervisor.
“In challenging the constitutionality and/or validity of the compensation section of Measure K, the board makes two arguments,” Judge Alvarez wrote. “The board argues its compensation cannot be implemented by voter initiative. And the voter initiative intrudes into a matter exclusively delegated to the board.”
Referencing the cases of Voters for Responsible Retirement v. Board of Supervisors and DeVita v. County of Napa, Judge Alvarez noted that the California Supreme Court had stated, “[W]e will presume, absent a clear showing of the legislature’s intent to the contrary, that legislative decisions of a city council or board of supervisors – including local employee compensation decisions – are subject to initiative and referendum” and that “local voters’ right to legislate by initiative is presumed on any subject the local governing body could also legislate, and ‘[i]f doubts can [be] reasonably resolved in favor of the use of [the] reserve initiative power, courts will preserve it.’”
Nevertheless, Judge Alvarez held that “when a county adopts a charter, its provisions are the law of the state and have the force and effect of legislative enactments. He thereupon referenced the decision in the case of Dimon v. County of Los Angeles, by means of the quotation, “Under the ‘home rule’ doctrine, county charter provisions concerning the operation of the county … trump conflicting state laws.”
Thus, while under California law and the California Government Code, Judge Alvarez found, “the governing body of a non-charter county will set forth their compensation by an ordinance, subject to referendums,” San Bernardino County is not a non-charter county, Judge Alvarez noted. Rather, it has a charter it adopted that makes the provisions generally applicable to non-charter county irrelevant, such that “the governing body of a charter county will set forth their compensation within the county’s charter. [San Bernardino] County is a charter county. Thus, its charter sets the board’s compensation.”
Still, Judge Alvarez noted, the initiative process could intrude into the province of setting the supervisors’ compensation, he said, since “constitutionally, a charter may be amended or repealed by the initiative process.”
“Considering all” of the factors bearing upon the issue of whether voters have the ability to set the compensation of the members of the board of supervisors or whether that authority lies with the supervisors themselves, Judge Alvarez ruled “the principal voter initiative power should be upheld” such that “the initiative process may alter the board’s compensation provision. Therefore, (a) as the county’s charter sets the compensation package for the governing body (versus by ordinance), (b) the California Constitution allows voters the power through the initiative process to amend a county charter with no showing the legislature expressly or by a clear intent excluded from the initiative power the right to amend a charter’s provision that sets the governing body’s compensation, and (c) amendments to a county charter is through the election process, the board is incorrect in concluding Measure K’s compensation provision is unconstitutional and/or invalid since it was amended through the initiative power.”
Accordingly, Judge Alvarez stated, “the compensation provision was found valid and constitutional.”
The Red Brennan Group did not fare as well with regard to Measure K’s provision to limit the supervisors to a single term.
Along most lines, Judge Alvarez held, the board of supervisors assertion that Measure K was unconstitutional in that it violated the 1st and 14th amendments of the U.S. Constitution did not hold up. In one respect, however, he concluded Measure K’s reduction of the possible tenure of a supervisor to a mere four years did not pass the reasonableness test, and on that ground, he declared the term limit aspect of the measure as inapplicable.
Judge Alvarez noted that “neither side disputes the right of the electorate to impose term limits on a county’s board of supervisors.”
Judge Alvarez went on to state, “The issue here is whether imposing a one-term limit, i.e., any person may only be elected once to the board for one 4-year term, creates an unreasonable burden on the voters’ right to vote and an incumbent’s right to seek office. As indicated by the board and case law, the rights at issue are the right of the electorate to vote for the candidate of their choice and the right of an incumbent to run for his office again. So the first question is whether such a burden is severe to require the strict scrutiny analysis or not so severe to impose a general balancing test. Per the 9th Circuit [Court of Appeals], the imposition of term limits on state officeholders is a neutral candidacy qualification that a state has the right to impose, and lifetime term limits do not constitute a discriminatory restriction.”
Still Judge Alvarez said, “The issue here is whether imposing a one-term limit, i.e., any person may only be elected once to the board for one 4-year term, creates an unreasonable burden on the voters’ right to vote and an incumbent’s right to seek office. The standard of the inquiry on the restrictive voter law depends on the extent the regulation burdens the 1st and 14th amendments.”
Judge Alvarez said a consideration of the rationale the Red Brennan Group gave for seeking the one-term restriction was relevant to the question.
“Per the proponents of Measure K, the one-term limit is about ensuring the attraction of representatives interested in public service and committed to following the will of the people. Its purpose is to shut out outside interest groups and focus the leaders on doing what is best for the voters,” Judge Alvarez wrote. He then referenced the Red Brennan Group’s promotion of Measure K. “’Measure K will ensure our elected officials are inspired by service to San Bernardino County, not an oversized paycheck or raising money to win their next election,'” he quoted. “So what the court is presented with is balancing the one-term limit imposing a burden on a voter’s right to choose the candidate of his/her choice, i.e., re-elect an incumbent who is performing competently, and an incumbent’s right to seek re-election against the interest of the voters ensuring the members of the Boards are there to serve the public interest, committed to following the will of the people, and not be influenced by interest groups or the need to seek re-election. Under a strict scrutiny analysis, the burden imposed of a one-term limit is not narrowly drawn to meet the interest stated for adopting Measure K. The state interest of stopping an incumbent from being distracted with re-election during his tenure is not stopped by merely limiting him to one term, as the incumbent may then be distracted by seeking election to another office or seeking a job after his term ends. So that stated reason is not justifying precluding the rights of voters and incumbents under the 15th and 14th amendments. Even under a general balancing test, the stated reason is not sufficient to justify imposing the burden precluding an incumbent from seeking re-election.”
Judge Alvarez held that the “Supreme Court recognized a lifetime term limit on state senators and assembly only arose after the incumbent has served a significant period in office. The same cannot be said here. A supervisor will be serving only 4 years versus a senator serving 8 years and assembly member serving 6 years before they are precluded from holding the same position. A one-term limit is not providing 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 vote for the other candidate.”
Judge Alvarez concluded with regard to the term limit provision, “Based on the foregoing, Measure K imposing a lifetime one-term limit imposes a burden that does not reasonably justify the infringement on voters’ and incumbents’ 1st and 14th amendment rights. Therefore, the term limit provision is unconstitutional, invalid, and unenforceable.”
Judge Alvarez also evaluated whether Measure K violated the single-subject rule for initiatives.
“The single-subject rule,” Judge Alvarez wrote, “is not violated ‘if, despite its varied collateral effects, all of [the initiative’s] parts are “reasonably germane” to each other, and to the general purpose or object of the initiative.”
Judge Alvarez found, “Under that stated purpose, it cannot be said the two provisions are distinct. They both are reasonably germane to ensuring the member of the board is about public service versus being paid a high salary or becoming a career politician. Whether this court or the board believes these two provisions will achieve that goal is irrelevant. Therefore, the single-subject rule is not violated.”
Judge Alvarez took up the question that was of significant import with regard to Measure K, that being its severability. Essentially, that question came down to whether, if one element of the measure was deemed to be unconstitutional, the entire measure would be null and void. As his determination was that the term limit provision was unenforceable, Judge Alvarez had to determine whether that meant that the compensation limitation of the measure could not yet be salvaged.
“Measure K contains a severability clause,” Judge Alvarez noted, “Although not conclusive, a severable clause normally will allow for sustaining a part of the enactment while severing the invalid part when mechanically severable.”
Judge Alvarez said, “There are ‘three criteria for severability: the invalid provision must be grammatically, functionally, and volitionally separable.’ Under the above criteria, the deemed unconstitutional term limit provision is grammatically and functionally separable from the compensation provision. The term limit provision is a distinct and separate provision within Measure K that can be removed without affecting the compensation provision’s language. Next, its removal may preclude amending the county’s charter to provide for one-term limits but its non-inclusion in the charter will not affect the implementation of the compensation provision. However, Intervener fails 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 thus determined, “Measure K is not severable.” He ruled therefore to “Grant board’s writ to preclud[e] the implementation of Measure K’s provisions.”
There were no representatives of the members of the board of supervisors available at press time to react to Judge Alvarez’s ruling.
Of some moment at this point, given Judge Alvarez’s ruling, is AB 428, legislation introduced this year by Assemblyman Chad Mayes, who before his election to state office was the chief of staff to Supervisor Janice Rutherford. At Rutherford’s behest, Mayes sponsored AB 428, which prevents term limits on the office of county supervisor from being set at fewer than two terms and allows elected supervisors to set their own pay. While Mayes went on record indicating that the bill was “prospective” and did not apply to term limits currently in place, Alvarez’s ruling preventing Measure K from being implemented would potentially mean that a future measure sponsored by the Red Brennan Group or any other entity or individual limiting supervisors’ pay cannot be put put before the voters or enforced if passed. Consequently, the Red Brennan Group finds itself in the position of now pursuing an appeal of Judge Alvarez’s ruling.
Tom Murphy, the spokesman for the Red Brennan Group, said, “In November 2020, more than two-thirds of San Bernardino County voters approved Measure K. In a rush to protect their own self-interests, and against the clear wishes of the people, the board of supervisors of the County of San Bernardino sued to overturn Measure K. In his final ruling, Judge Alvarez sided with big government. While acknowledging Measure K’s proponents had the core legal argument correct, Judge Alvarez opted to reach far afield to justify handing a loss to San Bernardino County residents. We will appeal this decision and expect to win on appeal.”

 

 

Lawyer Cozens Victorville Into District Voting

Threatened with a lawsuit brought under the auspices of the California Voter Rights Act it very likely would have prevailed upon had it chosen to go to court, the Victorville City Council this week opted out of having the city defend itself against charges that a number of its voters have been and will continue to be disenfranchised.
Instead the city will arrange to end its 59-year tradition of holding at-large elections and move to an electoral ward system through which its council members will represent what has yet to be determined will either be one-fourth or one-fifth of the city’s residents.
Victorville had survived what was a wave of transitions to by-district elections in San Bernardino County over the last five years, in which Chino Hills, Chino, Upland, Rancho Cucamonga, Fontana, Redlands, Highland, Hesperia, Yucca Valley, Barstow, Twentynine Palms and Yucaipa ceased holding at-large city council elections. In at-large contests, would-be and/or incumbent civic leaders are deemed eligible to compete for office by virtue of simply living within the city limits and being registered to vote. All of those eligible candidates run in the same race to select the number of positions on the council up for election that particular year. After being challenged, Chino Hills, Chino, Upland, Rancho Cucamonga, Fontana, Redlands, Highland, Hesperia, Yucca Valley, Barstow, Twentynine Palms and Yucaipa formed districts or wards, such that the only individuals eligible to run for office to represent any particular ward or district must be a resident of that ward or district, and residents of each ward or district can vote only in the balloting for the district in which they live and not in any city council race outside their district, with the lone exception being those cities which hold mayoral elections. Mayors are yet chosen in at-large races.
The root of the change being foisted upon Victorville lies within the California Voting Rights Act, passed by the California Legislature in 2001.
Under the California Voting Rights Act, a plaintiff or plaintiffs can file legal action against a governmental jurisdiction alleging polarized voting has taken place in its past elections and seek the remedy of having that jurisdiction switch from at-large elections to ones involving ward or district systems. The theoretical justification for having a city or governmental jurisdiction form such districts is the perceived likelihood that it will create political subdivisions in which the election of a member of an ethnic or racial minority is more likely to take place than in an at-large election. Upon proof being presented that such polarized voting exists, the courts will then require that the governmental entity in question adopt the ward/district system and require that the governmental entity pay the legal fees for the attorney or attorneys representing the plaintiff[s].
Polarized voting can be defined as a circumstance in which the number of registered voters belonging to a protected ethnic or racial minority within a specific jurisdiction exceeds, in comparison to the total number of registered voters in that jurisdiction, the ratio represented by a single member of that city’s or town’s council to the total number of members of that particular panel, when no members of that protected minority are counted among that council’s members. Thus, if any one of those protected minorities make up more than 20 percent of a municipality’s population but that city’s or town’s five-member council does not feature a member of that minority, then racially-polarized or ethnically-polarized voting is said to have occurred in that jurisdiction. Polarized voting can also be established as existing when a candidate who is a member of a protected minority receives more votes in a precinct wherein there is a high concentration of voters who are members of the same protected minority than he or she receives in a precinct where the predominate number of voters are not members of the same same protected minority as the candidate. Protected minorities include African-Americans, Hispanics, Native Americans, Pacific Islanders and Asians.
The California Voting Rights Act conferred upon the plaintiffs in cases brought under its provisions an overwhelming advantage in that though the plaintiff[s] stand to recover from the defendant all money expended or owed in the matter to pay for the plaintiff’s or plaintiffs’ attorney’s efforts if the suit succeeds either in whole or part, the cities or towns sued under the voting rights act are not eligible to recover their fees if they prevail in the litigation by succeeding in demonstrating that racially-polarized or ethnically-polarized voting has not occurred in their jurisdictions. Thus, the plaintiff[s] and the lawyers representing them in these legal actions brought under the California Voting Rights Act run no risk. On the other side of the plaintiff/defendant divide, the cities challenged in this way have to defray their own legal expenses if they chose to put on a defense at trial. Thus, even if a city prevails, it sustains unrecoverable legal costs, and if it loses, it stands to suffer costs of tens of thousands of dollars, hundreds of thousands of dollars and perhaps, depending upon how spirited of a defense the city puts on and the outcome of the legal proceedings, beyond a million dollars in legal fees to be paid to the prevailing party.
The California Election Code provides a city alleged to have engaged in racially-polarized voting a so-called “safe harbor” process by which it can simply refuse to contest the accusation of racially-polarized voting after receiving a letter from a prospective plaintiff charging it with being in violation of the California Voting Rights Act, make known its intention to transition to district-based elections by adoption of an ordinance within 45 days of having received the letter, sidestep the lawsuit, and pay the attorney who sent the letter $30,000 to $45,000.
Beginning in 2014, a bevy of opportunistic attorneys seeking a major payday through threatened or actual lawsuits under the California Voters Rights Act to ostensibly counteract racially-polarized or ethnically-polarized voting turned their attention to San Bernardino County.
Working as a team, Lancaster-based R. Rex Parris, Malibu-based Kevin Shenkman and Los Angeles-based Milton C. Grimes surveyed the San Bernardino County landscape and selected what what they considered to be the county’s most vulnerable jurisdiction among a handful of cities perceived to have foreclosed minority rights because of the relative scarcity or complete lack of elected Hispanic officeholders in those jurisdictions, even though they had a substantial Latino population.
Parris, Shenkman and Grimes settled upon the City of Highland, where despite more than 39 percent of the residents of that city being Latino, no Hispanics were serving on the city council. Highland thus became the first San Bernardino County city served with a demand that it alter the way it elects its council members. Thereafter, a lawsuit was filed July 18, 2014 in San Bernardino Superior Court by Parris, in conjunction with the law firm of Shenkman & Hughes and Milton C. Grimes, on behalf of Lisa Garrett, a Latino resident of Highland. In response, the city put an initiative on the November 2014 ballot, Measure T, asking if the city’s residents were in favor of a ward system. Measure T went down to defeat, with 2,862 votes or 43.01 percent in favor and 3,793, or 56.99 percent opposed. The lawsuit proceeded and the city sought to assuage the demand by proposing to allow cumulative voting, in which each voter is given one vote for each contested position and is allowed to cast any or all of those votes for any one candidate, or spread the votes among the candidates. When the matter went to trial, despite making a finding that the socioeconomic-based rationale presented by the plaintiff’s attorneys to support the need for ward elections was irrelevant and that the plaintiff’s assertion that district voting was the only way to cure the alleged violation of the Voting Rights Act was false, San Bernardino Superior Court Judge David Cohn mandated that Highland adopt a ward system.
Thereafter, Parris, Shenkman, Grimes and Matthew Barragan, who was then the staff attorney representing the Mexican American Legal Defense Fund known by the acronym MALDEF, threatened lawsuits under the California Voter Rights Act against the cities of Barstow, Big Bear Lake, Chino Hills, Chino, Fontana, Hesperia, Rancho Cucamonga, Redlands, Twentynine Palms, Upland and Yucaipa, as well as the towns Apple Valley and Yucca Valley. Despite the consideration that Barstow, Chino Hills, Chino and Redlands historically had fielded or at that point included Hispanic members on their city councils and that Upland, Rancho Cucamonga and Fontana historically or at that point had both Latino and African-American members of their city councils, all of those cities and all of those towns complied with the demands for shifts to district or ward systems, with those municipalities in many cases paying the lawyers the $30,000-to-$45,000 cost those attorneys were entitled to under the California Voters Rights Act and which those attorneys sought for forcing those cities and towns into compliance.
At that point, Parris, Shenkman, Grimes and Barragan checked out of the process, whereupon the cities or towns used consultants such as the National Demographics Corporation to draw up district or ward lines. Chino Hills, after consulting with the National Demographics Corporation, opted to utilize a different map, one drawn by two of that city’s residents, Brian Johsz and Richard Austin.
In case after case, the cities and towns adopted district voting or ward maps that were gerrymandered to provide the incumbent council members an advantage by placing them into districts that did not include other incumbents, and by timing the elections in such a way that their districts held elections at the end of the electoral cycle terminating with the elapsing of the close of the term the incumbents held as a result of their most recent at-large elections. One exception to this was in Chino Hills, where the Johsz/Austin map put three of the incumbents in separate districts and created two other districts, including one in which none of the then-current council members resided and one in which two members were living. Nevertheless, in the case of Chino Hills, the manner in which the districts were drawn up disadvantaged and disenfranchised a one-time Hispanic member member of the city council Roseana Mitchell-Arrieta. And ultimately, Johsz was himself elected to the council as the representative of one of the districts he had drawn up.
In none of those cases where the gerrymandering took place did Parris, Shenkman, Hughes, Grimes or Barragan raise any objections to how those district lines were drawn, even when they appeared to perpetuate the racially-polarized or ethnically-polarized voting that their threatened lawsuits were ostensibly aimed at curing.
Many of those observing that element of what occurred in those 13 cities that were forced into by-district elections after the lawsuit between Garrett and Highland concluded have independently remarked that it appears that Parris, Shenkman, Grimes and Barragan were not truly committed to redressing so-called polarized voting but rather shaking cities down in looking for a lucrative payday on the cheap by threatening a lawsuit and then accepting the $30,000-to-$45,000 payments that came their ways from the cities.
In the meantime, a handful of San Bernardino County cities had eluded the efforts of attorneys to bring about their conversion to by-district elections. Among those was the City of Victorville, which over the previous three decades had organically evolved to embodying, without any outside interference or the intervention of the California Voters Rights Act, both the spirit and intent of what is inherent in the California Voter Rights Act.
Beginning in 1991 and by 2014, the Victorville City Council counted among its members Felix Diaz, Jim Busby, Rudy Cabriales, Angela Valles, Gloria Garcia and Eric Negrete, all of whom qualified as protected minorities as defined by the California Voter Rights Act. Thereafter, again under the at-large voting system in place, Blanca Gomez, was elected to the council in 2016 and reelected in 2020, Rita Ramirez was elected to the city council in 2018, and Elizabeth Becerra and Leslie Irving were elected to the city council in 2020. Gomez, Ramirez, Becerra and Irving are all protected minorities under the California Voter Rights Act. After the 2020 election, all five members of the city council were women; and four of its five members – Gomez, Ramirez, Becerra and Irving – were protected minorities.
In the late winter of 2021, Becerra, a member of a protected minority, led the charge in having Ramirez, a member of a protected minority, removed from the council for what Becerra alleged was Ramirez’s failure to maintain her residency in Victorville. After Ramirez, a Democrat, had been removed from the council, the remaining members of the council – Gomez and Irving, who are Democrats, and Becerra and Mayor Debra Jones, who are Republicans, could not come to an agreement on an appointment to replace Ramirez. The position has remained unfilled since Ramirez was deposed in March.
On August 12, 2021, the City of Victorville received a certified letter from attorney Scott J. Rafferty, based in Walnut Creek, some 401 miles from Victorville. Rafferty claimed to be representing the group Neighborhood Elections Now along with “individual Latino electors residing in Victorville.” In his letter, Rafferty stated that Victorville’s existing at-large election system violated the California Voting Rights Act by “diluting the influence of Latino voters,” and threatened litigation if the city did not adopt a district-basted electoral system.
“The life experience and values of Latinos as a group (and of other minorities) is often distinct from the rest of the electorate,” Rafferty propounded. “Districting equalizes the voting power of minority neighborhoods.”
Because, Rafferty asserted, “the group of Latino candidates who ran in the 2018 election were disproportionately preferred by their own community,” proof existed that Victorville had, he claimed, engaged in racially polarized voting.
Without acknowledging or in any way mentioning that of the five most recently elected members of the city council three are Latina and one is an African-American woman, Rafferty insisted that “a single high-Latino district improves representation for Latinos throughout the city. Eliminating winner-take-all slates makes the council more representative of all constituencies.”
Again, without making any reference to the consideration that three of the city’s five most recently elected members of the council are Latina, Rafferty wrote, “[I]t is clearly possible to draw at least one council district in which Latinos are a majority of eligible voters.”
Rafferty called upon the city to immediately draw up an electoral district map and move to by-district elections.
Moving into dictatorial mode, Rafferty wrote, “The city has 45 days from its receipt of this letter to resolve its intent to comply before the next regular election in November 2022, and any special elections that may occur after the map is drawn.”
With the 45th day after the letter had been delivered to City Clerk Charlene Robinson falling on September 26, the city council was a day late in getting to the matter on Monday, September 27.
In his report to the council, City Attorney Andre de Bortnowsky wrote, “Although the city has asserted and believes that Mr. Rafferty’s allegations of a California Voting Rights Act violation lack evidentiary support for any Latino or other racially polarized voting in the city, absent the city’s adoption of a resolution of intention to initiate the transition to a district-based electoral system tonight, Mr. Rafferty can embroil the city in expensive litigation to force a district-based electoral system, leaving the city’s electoral system in the hands of a court. [A]ccordingly, the city council must decide tonight whether to adopt the resolution of intent.”
de Bortnowsky recommended that the city council “adopt [the resolution] declaring its intention to transition from at-large to district-based elections for members of the city council under Elections Code Section 10010. The basis for recommending adoption of [the resolution] is not a concession or admission that the city has or would ultimately be found to have violated the California Voting Rights Act. Instead, the recommendation stems from a determination that the public interest is better served, and taxpayer dollars better spent, by making a voluntary transition to by-district elections, given the uncertainty in defending such litigation and the extraordinary cost of such a lawsuit, even if the city were to prevail.”
de Bortnowsky said the city should be prepared to bear the cost of hiring a demographer and other consultants needed to draw the electoral district map, conduct public hearings, engage in community outreach, prepare and publish notices and related district map materials for the hearings related to the drawing of the districts and cover the cost of paying Rafferty $30,000.
de Bortnowsky said the city will need to meet a 90-day deadline for the adoption of an election district map and election sequence by means of an ordinance on or before December 27, 2021, unless Rafferty finds it in his soul to allow the city to perform under a 180-day deadline, such that the city will need to adopt the district-voting ordinance on or before March 28, 2022.
The city council, after hearing from residents on Monday night during the hearing relating to the item pertaining to the action Rafferty is forcing the city to take, adopted a resolution of intent by a 4-to-0 vote.
Unknown at this point is whether the city will form five districts or wards with each embodying as close as possible one fifth of the city’s 123,251 population with the selection of the mayor continuing to rotate among the council’s five members or whether Victorville will form four council districts, each composed of one-fourth of the city’s residents, augmented by a mayor’s post to be filled by a candidate elected at-large.
In response to questions emailed to him by the Sentinel, Rafferty, without being specific, implied that at least one of the Latino council members in Victorville over the last three decades – Diaz, Cabriales, Valles, Garcia, Negrete, Gomez, Ramirez and Becerra – did not adequately represent the members of the same protected minority of which he or she was himself or herself a member.
“Not every Latino office-holder on your list was an authentic candidate-of-choice of the Latino community,” he said, without explaining how he knew that to be the case or even how it was possible that it was the case.
Pushing the City of Victorville toward by-district elections even though four-fifths of those most recently elected are members of a protected minority under the California Voting Rights Act did not constitute a perversion of the intent of the California Voting Rights Act and was in some measure justified by the council’s vote to remove Ramirez from the council, Rafferty said.
“It is curious that you include Rita Ramirez, who received a vote from almost every Latino casting a ballot in 2018, but was removed without the benefit of a charter provision, ordinance or quo warranto proceeding, and was not replaced within the timeframe required by state law,” Rafferty said. “This is not evidence of equal influence by the Latino community.”
Rafferty made no reference or acknowledgment that Becerra was a prime mover in the removal of Ramirez from office.
Nonetheless, he implied that the current incumbents, three-quarters of whom are members of protected minorities and one-half of whom are Hispanic, were in some fashion responsible for the continuing political disenfranchisement of Latinos in Victorville.
“[T]he incumbents… know my clients’ concern about the continuing failure to replace member Ramirez and the prospect that an incomplete council could draw lines for an entire decade, especially since the immigrant communities of southeast Victorville are not represented,” he said.
Rafferty declined to identify his clients in Victorville, but did say that some of them were among those who spoke before the city council on September 27 urging the council to adopt a by-district voting system.
“Because of the potential for retaliation, I generally do not disclose individual clients until and unless it is necessary to sue,” he said. “But community support for districting was almost unanimous at the last council meeting.”
Rafferty offered something of a defense for seeking to move Victorville to by-district elections, even though four-fifths of those most recently elected are members of a protected minority as defined by the California Voting Rights Act.
“I am very selective in the jurisdictions to which I am willing to send notices,” he said. “Victorville is the largest city in California with a significant minority community that still elects at-large.”
As to the recurrent, indeed almost universal, pattern of gerrymandering protecting the political status quo and incumbents that occurred in San Bernardino County with the switch to by-district elections in the last half-decade, Rafferty said, “The voters in jurisdictions that I work with have a pretty good track record for increasing the number of minority officeholders and minority candidates-of-choice. This is about voters, not incumbents or candidates.” Then, without saying how he had information to make such a pronouncement, Rafferty claimed, “When officeholders who are members of a protected class are defeated in district elections, it is usually because they are not the minority’s candidate of choice. But you can’t engineer democracy, and minority communities are not always instantly empowered. It can take a few cycles to see the effects of this reform.”
-Mark Gutglueck

Norwegian Airline To Initiate Over-The-Pole Boeing 787 Flights To Ontario Next Year

Norse Atlantic Airlines, a Norwegian start-up headquartered in Arendal, Norway launched in March that will begin operations next summer, will include an Oslo-to-Los Angeles route in its flights to the United States.
Described as the international flight replacement of Norwegian Airlines, which was forced into bankruptcy in 2020 and which discontinued its trans-Atlantic flights as an element of its recovery plan, Norse Atlantic ASA is a publicly traded company listed on the Euronext Growth Exchange in Oslo, Norway. 53-year-old Bjørn Tore Larsen, is the airline’s founder, CEO, and major shareholder. He is seeking to obtain for Norse Atlantic a Norwegian air operator’s certificate, which is on a trajectory to be granted by November, as well as a British air operator’s certificate the company hopes to have secured by January or February.
“Inspired by the Norsemen who traveled and explored the world with their state-of-the art longships, Norse Atlantic Airways will give people the opportunity to explore other continents by offering affordable flights on board modern and more environmentally friendly Boeing 787 Dreamliners,” Larsen said. “Norse Atlantic Airways will serve the intercontinental market with fuel-efficient planes. It will among other destinations serve New York, Florida, Paris, London and Oslo.”
It is anticipated that by summer 2022, Norse will have 1,600 employees.
At present, Norse has acquired 18 Boeing 787 Dreamliners, In March, the company signed lease agreements with affiliates of AerCap Holdings NV for a 12-year lease of six Boeing 787-9s and an eight-year lease of three Boeing 787-8 aircraft. The Company anticipates taking delivery of the first of those nine aircraft no later than the first week of December 2021, with the delivery of the remaining aircraft no later than the end of March 2022. In August, it entered into a 16-year lease of six Boeing 787-9 Dreamliners from BOC Aviation Limited. Norse Airlines expects to take delivery of the aircraft in December 2021. The company is in the end stages of purchasing three 787-9s owned by Norwegian Airlines that were grounded in March 2020 due to COVID-19-related travel restrictions and then moth-balled shortly thereafter as a consequence of that airline’s bankruptcy.
The berthing of Norse Atlantic Airlines at Ontario International Airport will represent an historic step, as the airline will be the first to offer regularly scheduled flights into Ontario from Europe.
There have been occasional flights from and to Ontario via European destinations and points of departure, which were generally emergency landings, specialty flights carrying dignitaries or promotional flights such as that of the Concorde from London to Ontario and back in the 1980s. There was some discussion of regular Concorde flights to and from Ontario, but that did not come about after the Los Angeles Department of Airports Board of Commissioners, which then oversaw operations at Ontario Airport, bowed to a request by the Ontario City Council, which at that time had unanimously voted to prevent the Concorde from staging out of Ontario because its engines were too loud.
In September Norse Atlantic Airways filed an application with the Federal Aviation Administration for authorization to fly from Oslo Airport, located some 22 miles northeast of Oslo in Gardermoen, initially to three destinations in the United States – Ontario International Airport, Fort Lauderdale/Hollywood International Airport in Florida and Stewart International Airport in Orange County, New York, roughly 60 miles from New York City.
“We strongly believe that there is a need for a new and innovative airline serving the low-cost intercontinental market with modern, more environmentally friendly and fuel-efficient aircraft as the world gradually reopens,” Larsen said. “Our plans are on track and operations will commence when travel restrictions are lifted and demand for transatlantic travel is back. Based on the current situation, we anticipate that all our Dreamliners will be flying customers between Europe and the U.S. next summer. We will launch our ticket sales approximately three months prior to first flight and will offer exciting destinations that have proven to be attractive.”
The addition of Norse Atlantic to the airlines now functioning out of Ontario International Airport will lend greater credibility to the aerodrome’s billing as an international airport.
At present, the airport’s foreign destination smorgasbord is rather limited.
China Airlines and Volaris offer direct flights to Taiwan and Mexico, respectively, while AeroMexico has discontinued its previous regular connections to and from Ontario, although there are still some codeshare flights into Ontario operated by other airlines that use the AeroMexico name. Multiple connection flights to foreign destinations from Ontario are available.
Ontario, like virtually all other airports, took a hit during the COVID-19 pandemic. In 2019, 5,583,732 passengers came through its gates. In 2020, that number had dwindled to 2,538,482.
Airport officials, however, reported that in July of this year, ridership at the airport increased to roughly 478,000 passengers, which was just about 97 percent of the 493,000 passengers that flew into and out of the airport in July 2019, prior to the coronavirus crisis.
-Mark Gutglueck