A series of unfortunate events set amidst unprofessional action or incompetence on the part of officials with two Joshua Tree institutions led to the death of an elderly security guard for which a mentally-ill man is now on trial.
Adam Ahmed Almoula has not had an easy life. Over the last sixteen months it has grown immeasurably harsher.
His mother, a Native American, and father, a Saudi Arabian student studying in America, met while they were attending college in the early 1980s. The couple married and Amoula was born in 1983. When his father completed his education, he was purposed to return to Saudi Arabia. His mother, however, was unwilling to leave the United States. Almoula’s father returned to his native country, leaving his wife and young child behind.
The mother and child lived in Yucaipa, where she had been raised.
When Adam was yet a toddler, his mother began to show signs of systemic lupus erythematosus. Over the next several years, her condition worsened. In 1990, when Almoula was seven years old, one morning he awoke and a few minutes later found his mother dead in bed.
At that point, his maternal aunt, Victoria Keller, took him into her home and raised him.
Adam struggled as a child, living in a circumstance in which his father was lost to him and his mother was dead. Despite the kindness of his aunt, he suffered the indignity of being ostracized by his peers at school, who in reaction to his name and being informed that his father was a Saudi, called him a sandnigger, camel jockey and diaparhead. Some of the students were physically abusive toward him. His self esteem deteriorated.
In the midst of the circumstance in which Almoula was being mistreated by some of her other students, his teacher had him tell his classmates of his experience in finding his mother dead. This apparent effort to induce the others in his class to empathize with him and cease their verbal abuse redounded detrimentally when one of Almoula’s classmates instead told him that his mother’s body was rotting in the ground while worms were crawling into and out of her eyes and mouth.
While he was still an adolescent, Almoula was diagnosed as suffering from post traumatic stress disorder.
Another well-intended but possibly devastating blow to Almoula’s immediate and long-term development came about when he was prescribed medicines – anti-psychotic drugs – which he began to take as a teenager.
Almoula never acclimated himself socially, becoming and remaining a loner. He did not move through the normal patterns of adjustment. He did not join the military or receive any post high school education. According to his aunt, he had few friends, and those he did develop relationships with took advantage of him or were cruel to him in some way, which deepened and broadened his isolation.
When his aunt and her husband moved to the relatively remote desert community of Joshua Tree, he accompanied them there. The atmosphere in Joshua Tree was well suited to Almoula, as he was insulated from people. According to Keller, her nephew was at relative peace on her property, where she had goats and a donkey. Almoula, she said, was kind to the domesticated animals she was raising, and was fascinated by the wildlife that were a part of the natural desertscape, in particular the mojave jackrabbits.
Moreover, Keller said, despite his inability to develop close personal relationships with people, Almoula was compassionate, insisting on the occasions when she would take him into town in Joshua Tree or Yucca Valley or Twentynine Palms, that they show compassion for the homeless they would encounter there by giving them food.
In his early thirties, Almoula was diagnosed as having schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. His medications were adjusted. There followed a period during which medical professionals sought to fine tune his pharmaceutical panel.
Only Almoula can know the inward effect of the permutations of the medications prescribed to him. Outwardly, those drugs appeared varied in their impact. At times Almoula came across as evened out, an indication that the medications were having their desired or intended effect. Sometimes he became excitable. Other times catatonic. At times, he transformed into a seeming zombie. It was not uncommon for him to come across as stoned.
The latter effect became problematic when Almoula would venture out into civilization, into town in Joshua Tree or occasionally Yucca Valley or Twentynine Palms. The San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department provides law enforcement service to all three of those communities, since Joshua Tree is an unincorporated county district and the Town of Yucca Valley and the City of Twentynine Palms, both incorporated municipalities, contract with the sheriff’s department to serve as their police departments. Historically, the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department does not quality as the most enlightened police agency nationally, in California or even in San Bernardino County. The county’s desert communities have for generations been places where the least well-educated, the lesser sophisticated, the most brutal, the least compassionate, the questionably competent and the laziest of the department’s deputies have been assigned. When the department’s deputies would encounter Almoula, relying on the department’s somewhat unreliable intoxication recognition protocol, they would deem him to be stoned, i.e,, under the influence. This, under the department’s code, gave the deputies license to beat him or otherwise mistreat him. It is unknown, precisely, how many of these encounters Almoula had with the department’s deputies. Official San Bernardino County Superior Court records reflect that on four occasions in the last ten years – December 12, 2018, March 24, 2019, June 6, 2019 and December 20, 2019 – the sheriff’s department mistakenly arrested him for being under the influence of a controlled substance. Ultimately, on August 26, 2019, the court dismissed the cases against Almoula growing out of the March 24, 2019 and June 6, 2019 arrests based upon the district attorney’s office requesting that they be dismissed in the interest of justice because what had been his supposed intoxication was determined to be a byproduct of his medication. Ultimately, this week, on Tuesday April 27, 2021, the court dismissed the case against Almoula that sprung from his December 12, 2018 arrest for being under the influence, again based upon the district attorney’s office’s acknowledgment that the arresting officer(s) was/were mistaken in assuming Almoula was intoxicated on street drugs.
Similarly, over the years, Almoula’s behavior and comportment has drawn attention to itself, and at least in some instances involved the sheriff’s department overreacting or misinterpreting the circumstance in which Almoula had come to be involved.
Almoula was arrested for misdemeanor battery on November 11, 2002. When the actual circumstances and events were outlined to the court, the charge was dropped on May 7, 2003.
On December 3, 2005, an incident in Joshua Tree resulted in Almoula’s arrest on two felony charges of abuse of an elder or dependent and assault with a deadly weapon other than a firearm likely to result in great bodily injury. Thirteen days later, on December 16, 2005, at a court appearance without legal representation, Almoula pleaded guilty to the assault with a deadly weapon likely to inflict great bodily injury charge.
On February 4, 2013, Almoula was involved in what was referred to as a circumstance of domestic violence and was arrested by the sheriff’s department on two felony charges, assault with a deadly weapon other than a firearm likely to cause great bodily injury and infliction of corporal injury on a spouse or cohabitant. On May 8, 2013, again appearing without legal representation, Almoula was induced to enter a guilty plea on the infliction of corporal injury on a spouse or cohabitant.
A one-time member of the prosecutor’s office acknowledged that pressing the 2005 and 2013 cases against Almoula was done to assist the sheriff’s department, whose deputies had roughed Almoula up in making the arrests, save face and help the county avoid potential liability. The prosecutor likened obtaining the conviction against the mentally ill Almoula to “shooting fish in a barrel.”
The sheriff’s department and the district attorney’s office did not fare as well in a case that was made against Almoula that grew out of an incident occurring on December 3, 2007, the four-year anniversary of the 2003 incident. On December 3, 2007, Almoula was arrested and charged with infliction of corporal injury on a spouse or cohabitant and misdemeanor vandalism. Those charges were dismissed on May 7, 2008, the four-year anniversary of the misdemeanor battery charge from the November 11, 2002 incident being dismissed.
According to his aunt, describing Almoula as violent is a mischaracterization. He has episodes of psychosis, she said, but emphasized, “He has never been violent toward me or my husband. He has always been very respectful. He never tore up anything. He never stole anything. He cannot socialize. He is is okay with my husband and myself. He has talked to some people that are around. It is painful to see people who try to take advantage of him. We live far out in Joshua Tree. He feeds the squirrels that are here. He talks about the animals. There is a kindness to him.”
According to Keller, on December 19, 2019, Almoula felt an episode coming on, one which he recognized by experience would not be suppressed by his normal regimen of medicine. Keller said both she and Almoula understood that the local hospital in Joshua Tree, the Hi-Desert Medical Center, did not have the facilities to deal with his condition, and that he would more properly be committed to what is referred to as Ward B at the county hospital in Colton. Keller said she and Almoula further knew that an effort by Almoula to self commit himself would be ineffective if he simply went to the Hi-Desert Medical Center, and that he would be discharged from that facility without getting adequate treatment. Therefore, she said, “He wanted to go to the county psych ward, where he knew he needed to be. He knew he was having an episode and that if the sheriff’s department brought him in on a 5150 call, they would have to take him in for a 72-hour observation hold. He couldn’t get that if he went there on his own volition, and he knew the Hi-Desert Medical Center did not have the facilities to treat him.”
5150 is law enforcement nomenclature for mentally ill.
They summoned the sheriff’s department, Keller said, around 6 p.m. on December 19, 2019, and the deputies arrived around 6:30 p.m. “They told me they were taking him to the county psychiatric ward, but instead they went to the end of the road and put him into a Morongo Valley Fire Station ambulance, and shipped him off to the Hi-Desert Medical Center,” Keller said. “At Hi-Desert, they gave him more psych meds to calm him down. I believe he had already medicated himself with the two anti-psychotic drugs he has. They gave him Ativan, which is incompatible with one of the medications he takes. Then they released him.”
That was at roughly 10:30 p.m. Almoula then set out to go back to his aunt’s house, located on Sunburst Circle. The Sunburst Circle turnoff is roughly 1.9 miles west on Highway 62 from White Feather Road, upon which the High Desert Medical Center is located. Walking along Highway 62, also known as the Twentynine Palms Highway, that night, Almoula failed to turn down Sunburst Circle, which would have taken him to his aunt’s house, and he just kept walking.
“He was already overmedicated, and they gave him even more,” Keller said of the staff at the Hi-Desert Medical Center. “He had a bad reaction to that. He was disoriented and apparently did not know where he was. He continued on foot westward on Highway 62.”
Almoula continued another mile to mile-and-a-half all the way through Joshua Tree and then covered the roughly seven miles between Joshua Tree and the outskirts of Yucca Valley. Almoula later told her, Keller said, that by the time he reached Yucca Valley he felt as if he was having a heart attack. He eventually made his way to the first commercial facility open at that hour, an AM PM Arco gas station. By that time, it was 3 a.m. on the morning of December 20, 2019. The clerk at the AM PM called 911. The responders were a California Division of Forestry and Fire Service ambulance crew. The crew drove him back to Joshua Tree to the Hi-Desert Medical Center. At the Hi-Desert Medical Center, a different shift was in place at 3:30 a.m. on December 20 than the one Almoula had encountered at around 7 p.m. on December 19. Almoula was administered more Ativan.
The staff on duty at that point believed the Ativan would have a sedative-effect on Almoula, and they escorted him to a place in the emergency waiting room for him to sit down. They told a woman employee in the waiting room and a 69-year-old security guard, Gary Pack, to prevent Almoula from leaving.
At around 5:30 a.m., just as hospital personnel were starting to fill out paperwork to put Almoula on a 5150 hold, he got up and left the emergency waiting room. Hospital staff confronted Almoula, persuading him to go back into the emergency waiting room. Shortly thereafter, Almoula again attempted to leave, heading into the hospital’s lobby, with Pack following behind him. As Almoula was approaching the entrance to/exit from the hospital, Pack managed to get between Almoula and the door, blocking Almoula’s exit. Almoula attempted to spin around Pack, and his legs entangled with Pack’s, kicking the security guard’s legs out from beneath him. Pack went down to the ground, breaking his left femur in the fall and momentarily blacking out. When Pack came to, he grabbed Almoula by his leg in an attempt to prevent him from leaving. When Pack then tried to get up, he was unable to because of severe pain in his leg and hip.
According to a witness, at one point while he was outside the hospital, Almoula picked up a rock in an effort to fend off a security guard, and then threw the rock at but missed the security guard. It is unclear whether the security guard referenced by that witness was Pack. Another witness stated that Almoula punched a security guard several times. From the sheriff’s department report pertaining to the incident, it is not clear whether the security guard Almoula was said to have punched was Pack.
Almoula was detained and arrested by the sheriff’s department for assault with a deadly weapon other than a firearm and battery inflicting serious bodily injury and three charges of being under the influence of a controlled substance.
Pack underwent surgery on his leg and hip. He remained hospitalized for five days after the surgery and was sent home. On January 4, 2020, Pack developed a blood clot and died. The blood clot was considered to be a complication from the surgery he underwent for his broken leg. In this way, the district attorney’s office is proceeding with prosecuting Almoula on two charges – PC 245(a) (1) assault with a deadly weapon other than a firearm with the likelihood of inflicting great bodily injury and PC 192 (a) voluntary manslaughter. At this point, the district attorney’s office is not pursuing the charges of being under the influence of a controlled substance against Almoula.
Because of Almoula’s mental condition, he was not considered sane enough to stand trial. Under such circumstances, defendants are generally sent to a state mental hospital to undergo evaluation and potential restoration of their sanity to make them eligible to stand trial. Because of the COVID-19 circumstance in the spring and summer of 2020, Almoula was not checked into Patton State Hospital until October. Psychiatrists there experimented with a number of medications in an effort to render him compos mentis, meaning he was capable of understanding the legal proceedings to which he is being subjected. After his return to the custody of the sheriff’s department, however, his access to the medications that rendered him fit to stand trial was cut off, and his mental condition has now worsened to the point that he is no longer able to participate in his own defense.
On Tuesday, April 27, he appeared in Department M2 in the Joshua Tree Courthouse before Judge Shannon Faherty. Judge Farherty appeared intent on moving the matter to trial at the earliest possible date.
Deputy Public Defender James Carson, who had recently replaced Deputy Public Defender Isaac Rees as Almoula’s legal counsel, pointed out that his client’s mental state has deteriorated since his medication has been cut off since he has left Patton State Hospital and is now in the custody of the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department at West Valley Detention Center in Rancho Cucamonga. Carson asserted that he could not give Almoula adequate representation without Almoula’s mental competency being maintained, which he said was not possible if his medicinal therapy  remains discontinued. He requested that the court order the sheriff’s department to reinstitute the daily administration of anti-psychosis chemical agents to Almoula.
Judge Faherty ordered Almoula’s medicinal panel to be reinstated and for Almoula to return to her courtroom on May 11 for a progress review on the restoration of his ability to understand the proceedings against him and participate in his defense.
There is some indication of dissent within the district attorney’s office with regard to Almoula’s prosecution. Deputy District Attorney Jason Gueltzow was previously prosecuting the case against him. He has recently been replaced by Deputy District Attorney Michelle Bergey.
Bergey did not respond to the Sentinel’s inquiries with regard to the case.
-Mark Gutglueck

Robert Allen Shuey, whose affinity for violence and methamphetamine along with a penchant for drug dealing, theft and mayhem left a multitude of ruined lives in his wake, died under mysterious circumstances this week.
There were two conflicting accounts of how Shuey met his end.
One report was he died of an overdose in his house.
A second version was that Shuey’s exit from earth was even more violent than his everyday existence. Unverified at press time was that he was shot in the face from near point blank range while he was at his home in Blue Jay.
In his 30 years, Shuey was charged with 13 separate felonies and more than 20 misdemeanors stemming from 17 different cases/arrests in San Bernardino County alone. He was convicted on seven of those felonies and 11 of the misdemeanors. At the time of his death, two felony charges stemming from a single incident on May 21, 2020 were pending against him, those charges being first degree burglary and assault by means of force likely to cause great bodily injury.
Since turning 18 years old, Shuey was sentenced to prison or jail terms totaling seven years and 257 days.
Among the felony convictions Shuey sustained were for drug dealing, theft, assault, burglary and weapons charges. Several of his misdemeanor charges involved fighting or assault. At the time of his death, the district attorney’s office was considering filing charges, either as misdemeanors or felonies, relating to two physical assaults – indeed severe beatings – he had administered.
Shuey loved to fight and had engaged in far many more physical assaults than he had been criminally charged with. In recent years, he had bragged that he had put over a dozen people into the hospital.
In 2016, an inebriated Shuey beat a uniformed security guard working the grounds of the Lake Arrowhead Marina, Pedro Chavez, to a pulp, because he said, Chavez was flirting with his girlfriend.
Shuey’s savage attack on Alex Opmanis in January 2019 precipitated the July 2019 fatal shooting of Shuey’s friend, Sammy Davis. Indeed, Shuey’s infamy escalated as a result of his role as a catalyst in the death of Davis, 28. Shuey fled the scene after the shooting, gathering up what some believe as crucial evidence that might have served to exonerate Opmanis. Shuey’s involvement in Davis’s death came to public light in the aftermath of Opmanis’s arrest and the filing of murder charges against him.
The events which triggered the July 11, 2019 shooting went back some six months prior to that. In January 2019, Opmanis, then 27, who had previously made the acquaintance of Shuey through their mutual interest in dirt bike riding, was at the Dogwood bar in Blue Jay. Shuey, who lived not too distant from the bar, invited Opmanis, who had been drinking heavily, to come to his home. Opmanis at some point vomited while he was at Shuey’s house, after which a fight ensued. Opmanis was beaten severely and required hospitalization as a result, losing a portion of his vision in his left eye from the trauma Shuey had inflicted. The doctors treating Opmanis considered it necessary to insert a plate in his head because a portion of his skull had collapsed.
Encouraged by his family, Opmanis filed a civil suit against Shuey. The filing of the suit antagonized Shuey, an avid motorcyclist and gang member with a reputation for stabbing people. During the February-to-June 2019 timeframe, Shuey made repeated threats against Opmanis and his family, on occasion in public places and situations. In reaction, Opmanis obtained a handgun, a Glock 27 .40 caliber, which he routinely carried in his vehicle, a black 2000 Mercedes SUV.
On July 11, 2019 Shuey and another avid motorcyclist, Shane Codman, then 28, had ridden their motorcycles down from the mountain communities first to Corona and then to a “Bike Night” in Riverside, where they met up with Sammy Davis around 6 p.m., in the course of which they were consuming alcohol. The three left Riverside around 8 p.m., riding their motorcycles to return to the mountains. They intended to stop at Goodwin’s Market in Crestline to purchase hamburger and beer before going to Shuey’s home in Blue Jay for a late night barbecue.
Meanwhile, Opmanis had gone to Goodwin’s Market, located at 24089 Lake Gregory Drive in Crestline. An external security camera at Goodwin’s Market, operated by Scottsdale, Arizona-based Clear Protection Services, Inc. shows Opmanis driving into the store’s parking lot at 8:49 p.m., and an internal camera also operated by Clear Protection shows him coming into the store at 8:52 p.m., accompanied by two individuals, one identified as Osvaldo Nuno and another known only as Johnny. Davis, Shuey and Codman arrived at Goodwin’s Market at 9:02 p.m., as recorded by the store’s external security camera, and are seen coming into the store at 9:04 p.m. While Opmanis knew both Shuey and Codman, he had no previous encounters with and did not know Davis, who had spent the better part of the previous decade in prison.
According to an individual speaking on behalf of Clear Protection Services, the video surveillance system in place at Goodwin’s Market consists of several cameras, all of which run continuously and are not triggered by motion sensors or any other devices which interrupt the video surveillance.
The most telling piece of evidence in the case involving Opmanis is the video taken from one of the store’s external cameras which shows the parking space where Opmanis’s Mercedes SUV is parked very close to the center of its field of perspective. The store’s other cameras, while useful in putting the events of that evening in a temporal order, do not actually capture the shooting itself.
At 9:06 p.m., Opmanis, Nuno and Johnny are shown on the internal and then the external cameras leaving the store. Thereafter, Opmanis puts groceries into his Mercedes. Between 9:08 p.m. and 9:09 p.m., the external video shows Opmanis talking to Nuno and Johnny while they are seated in Johnny’s vehicle, which is parked proximate to Opmanis’s Mercedes. Johnny and Nuno in their vehicle drive out of the camera’s field of view.
The external camera shows Sammy Davis emerging from the store at 9:09 p.m., at which point he lights a cigarette and spots Opmanis. The camera’s audio picks up Davis yelling at Opmanis, “It’s on you, punk.” At 9:10 p.m. on the external video, Opmanis can be seen standing on the running board of his Mercedes and remaining wary of Davis, Shuey and Codman.
At 9:11 p.m., the video shows Johnny and Nuno pull back into the parking lot and park, lights on, behind Opmanis’s black Mercedes SUV.
Opmanis remained outside his vehicle looking in the direction of the bikers. Shortly thereafter, the audio on the video captures the sound of the three bikers starting their motors. At 9:12, the motorbikes’ engines are rumbling loudly. Between 9:12 p.m. and 9:13 p.m., amidst revving motorcycle engines, the bikers, with Shuey in the lead, begin to move out from the parking lot, crossing in front of the Mercedes. As they pass, Shuey can be seen flipping Opmanis off with his right hand, which causes his motorcycle to momentarily swerve while he is making the hand gesture. This provokes Opmanis, who responds by himself flipping Shuey off. Codman and Davis who were following Shuey out of the parking lot, suddenly turn hard left to come up to Opmanis. Shuey, who had briefly exited the parking lot, then made an immediate U-turn to return to the parking lot, joining the still helmeted Codman, who is in a verbal exchange with Opmanis. Sammy Davis is at that point parked near the rear of Opmanis’s Mercedes SUV. Shuey pulls in and parks in between Codman and Davis, at the front of Alex’s SUV. At 9:13 p.m. on the video, Opmanis is surrounded by the three bikers, and he appears to be having a loud and animated exchange with Davis and Codman as Shuey has arrived. Davis dismounts from his bike. Shuey removes his helmet, dismounts from his bike, and approaches Opmanis. Davis is at the rear of the Mercedes at the same time as Shuey takes off his helmet and his jacket. Shuey then dismounts. Shuey and Davis approach Opmanis, it appears aggressively. Codman remains on his motorcycle to the far right in the video camera’s field. Market patrons are scattered about, with cars coming and going and other commotion. Opmanis, who is toward the rear of the SUV, makes his way back to the front driver’s side door that is open. Sammy Davis at first moves in toward Opmanis, but then circles around the back side of Shuey. At that point, it appears that the assault on Opmanis begins, followed by a crucial 12-second gap in the video that was presented as evidence during Opmanis’s preliminary hearing. When the video resumes at 9:14:08 p.m., the physical altercation between Opmanis and Davis is in full swing more toward the rear of the SUV than the front. A shopping cart or carts can be heard rattling violently in the shopping cart corral next to Opmanis’s vehicle. Shuey approaches the fight as Davis and Opmanis appear to be hunched over and struggling. The fight between them moves toward the front of Opmanis’s SUV. Shuey has his phone out with its light engaged, and appears to be videoing the fight. Two shots are heard. Nuno gets out of the passenger side of Johnny’s vehicle, still parked behind Opmanis’s Mercedes SUV with the lights on. Nuno immediately returns to the vehicle and Johnny speeds off. Shuey moves rapidly away and ducks behind a parked car. Shuey is crouching down approximately eight to ten feet away from where Davis was shot, very close to the SUV.
After the shooting, Opmanis can be heard attempting to summon help. When Opmanis produces his phone to make a call and Shuey begins moving toward him, Opmanis yells, “Get back! Get Back!” and gestures strongly to Shuey. Shuey momentarily crouches behind a vehicle.
By 9:17 p.m., a woman, later identified as an off-duty nurse, is seen on the video attempting to administer to Davis. The nurse later reported that Davis reeked of alcohol.
At 9:17 p.m., Codman mounted his bike and rode off.
Shuey remained at the scene for more than four minutes following the shooting, at one point retrieving something from Davis’s person or next to him. He then made a hand gesture towards Opmanis, put his helmet on, started his motorcycle and rode away at 9:18 p.m.
Opmanis, who was originally represented by attorney Jeffrey Lawrence, subsequently by David Striker of the San Bernardino County Public Defender’s Office and now by attorney Mark Geragos, has pleaded not guilty, asserting he was acting in self defense. Opmanis’s trial is scheduled to begin next month.
Davis, like Shuey, had an extensive criminal record, including a 2012 conviction for burglary, a 2011 conviction for receiving stolen property, a misdemeanor conviction for public intoxication, and a 2008 felony conviction for burglary. Just prior to the shooting, Davis had been released from prison after serving a portion of a sentence for assault.
It was anticipated that Shuey was going to be called to testify during Opmanis’s trial. He was considered to be a key witness for both the prosecution and the defense. There have been indications that Geragos and Opmanis’s co-counsel, Alexandra Kazarian, intend to make an issue at trial of the severe beating Opmanis had suffered at the hands of Shuey roughly six months before the shooting of Davis and Shuey’s participation in the assault upon Opmanis on July 11, 2019 just seconds before Davis was fatally shot to establish that Opmanis had a reasonable fear for his safety that justified the discharge of his weapon.
Shuey was yet facing the charges of burglary together with assault with a deadly weapon resulting in great bodily injury relating to the incident he was involved in on May 21 of last year at 27115 State Highway 189 in Blue Jay. Shuey was arrested by San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department deputies working out of the Twin Peaks sheriff’s substation in the aftermath of that incident
Despite his multiple arrests and convictions, Shuey appeared until this week to lead a charmed life. Though he had been sentenced to more than seven years in prison, his actual time incarcerated was less than half of that. He was well-served by his attorney, Gary Wenkle Smith, who on at least two occasions kept him insulated from the often rough-edged wheels of justice.
There are indications that the sheriff’s department’s homicide detail, which was on the scene of the apparent shooting late Monday night, April 26 until late Tuesday morning, April 27, has not identified a suspect in the killing. The department has been tight-lipped with regard to Shuey’s death, and did not acknowledge questions from the Sentinel relating to it. Word has reached the Sentinel that a search warrant for Shuey’s residence was obtained in the aftermath of the shooting and executed on April 27.
Among those who knew him and of him, there was a perception that given the nature of his lifestyle, his indulgence in criminality and his tendency toward physical intimidation and violence, Shuey’s number was going to come up, probably sooner rather than later. Indeed, that is what appears might have happened Monday night. One of his acquaintances summarized the circumstance thusly: “He fucked with the wrong cowboy.”
Homicide detectives working the case face the challenge of sifting through a plethora of potential suspects, seeking among the dozens of those who had an animus toward Shuey for the one who might have held a deadly grudge.
Nevertheless, Robert Allen Shuey had friends. He was someone’s son and brother. He was someone’s father. He was appreciated, at least in one circle. By Thursday, tributes to him were lodged with a website, insideeko.com. One read, “Thank you for your contagious happy adrenaline, your friendship, and those favorite memories plus more you gifted me with while you were here. [I’m] gonna miss you, and wish I had spent more time with you, but I’m grateful for your time [I’ll] forever cherish. I Love you little big dawg, you were as real as they make em.”
Another said, “Damn man, damn. Love you brother. Breaking into and skating late nights on the ice rinks, mountain biking with you, your pops, and brother, going to your football games or having to go to Joe’s soccer games.”
“Life is too short,” read another. “We all lost another great friend. Robert Shuey you were so loved. R.I.P.”
-Mark Gutglueck

In what was seen as an indicator of whether recently-elected Fontana City Councilman Peter Garcia would show independence from Mayor Acquanetta Warren, the Fontana City Council on April 27 approved the development of a nearly 200,000-square-foot warehouse in south Fontana.
Warehouse development in Fontana has become a controversial issue in 217,237-population Fontana over the last several years. Warren, who has been mayor since 2010, has embraced warehouses as a pathway to economic development in the blue collar city, to the point that she has earned the sobriquet “Warehouse Warren.” She has made a case that Fontana’s location on the West Coast not too distant from the Port of Los Angeles and near the confluence of the I-10, I-15 and 210 freeways, together with its proximity to Ontario International Airport and the advantage of rail lines that run through the city make it an ideal host for warehousing. Warehouses will provide jobs for unskilled and under-educated city inhabitants, Warren maintains.
Opponents to the proliferation of warehouses in the Inland Empire and particularly in Fontana cite relatively poor pay and benefits provided to those who work in them, the large diesel-powered semi-trucks that frequent them with their unhealthy exhaust emissions together with the bane of traffic gridlock they create.
Warren’s critics say she is less interested in the economic development and job creation warehouses represent than the hefty political donations their proponents provide her.
Warren is an entrenched Republican Party political boss, who commands the unquestioning loyalty of councilmen John Roberts and Phil Cothran, Jr., both Republicans. Her former ally, Councilman Jesse Armendarez, another Republican, gave up his council seat last year to vie, unsuccessfully, it turned out, for Fifth District county supervisor. In the November election, Warren endorsed Peter Garcia, a member of the Fontana School
Board who had been a member of the Fontana Planning Commission from 2009 to 2016.
Garcia emerged victorious. Despite Garcia having been endorsed by Warren, there was a question as to whether he would go along with her headlong pursuit of ever more warehouses in the city. Professionally, Garcia is a scientist with the California Environmental Protection Agency. At present, he is the Southern California regional executive manager for the Department of Toxic Substances Control’s Site Mitigation Program, in which capacity he is responsible for protecting human health and the environment from hazardous substance-contaminated properties throughout California. He has a bachelor of science degree in biological sciences from Loyola Marymount University,.
Some of Warren’s opponents hoped that Garcia would defy Warren’s expectation that he would go along with her agenda of allowing transportation intensive warehousing to spring up at all order of locations around the 42.4-square mile city.
As it turned out on Tuesday night, however, those people were disappointed,
Over the objections of more than 30 citizens who weighed in against the project during the public comment portion of the meeting, Warren, Roberts, Cothran and Garcia voted to approve the plans for the 194,212-square-foot logistics and distribution facility, together with a restaurant on 8.68 acres at the southeast corner of Slover and Citrus avenues, directly north of Jurupa Hills High School and south of the Interstate 10 Freeway.
Opponents of the project believed that Garcia, as a former school board member, would prove receptive to concerns expressed by the Fontana Unified School District relating to the hazards such a facility would represent to the school and students there. That turned out not to be the case.
Councilmember Jesse Sandoval, a Democrat who vied against but lost to Warren in the 2018 mayoral race but was reelected to the city council in 2020, was the sole vote against the warehouse project.
Project proponent David Wiener, who had previously pursued developing the site into a shopping center, shifted to the warehouse concept after being unable to convince a major supermarket chain to become his tenant there..
-Mark Gutglueck

SUMMONS – (CITACION JUDICIAL)
CASE NUMBER (NUMERO DEL CASO) CIVDS2018889
NOTICE TO DEFENDANTS (AVISO DEMANDADO): DAVID ZEPEDA, TRUSTEE OF THE DAVID ROSE, IVY KIRBY, JACK CADMAN, LYDIA CADMAN, ALBERT GUSTON, FRANCE GUSTON, TRUST; SB MANAGEMENT, BUSINESS UNKNOWN; ALL PERSONS UNKNOWN CLAIMING ANY LEGAL OR EQUITABLE RIGHT, TITLE, ESTATE, LIEN OR INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THE COMPLAINT ADVERSE OF PLAINTIFF’S TITLE, OR ANY CLOUD OF PLAINTIFF’S TITLE THERETO,
YOU ARE BEING SUED BY PLAINTIFF (LO ESTA DEMANDANDO EL DEMANDANTE):
REFUGIO ROBELO
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):
SAN BERNARDINO JUSTICE CENTER
247 West 3rd Street
San Bernardino, CA 92415-0210
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):
MICHAEL C. MADDUX, ESQ.
1894 COMMERCENTER WEST, SUITE 108
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92408
Telephone No: (909) 890-2350
Attorney for petitioner Refugio Robelo
DATE (Fecha): 07/02/19
Clerk (Secretario), by Nathanial Johnson, Deputy (Adjunto)
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on: 4/09, 4/16, 4/23 & 4/30 2021.

ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR ORDER ALLOWING SERVICE BY PUBLICATION
CASE NUMBER (NUMERO DEL CASO) CIVDS2018889
IN RE: REFUGIO ROBELO, Plaintiff
vs.
DAVID ZEPEDA, TRUSTEE OF THE DAVID ROSE, IVY KIRBY, JACK CADMAN, LYDIA CADMAN, ALBERT GUSTON, FRANCE GUSTON, TRUST; SB MANAGEMENT, BUSINESS UNKNOWN; ALL PERSONS UNKNOWN CLAIMING ANY LEGAL OR EQUITABLE RIGHT, TITLE, ESTATE, LIEN OR INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THE COMPLAINT ADVERSE OF PLAINTIFF’S TITLE, OR ANY CLOUD OF PLAINTIFF’S TITLE THERETO, AND DOES 1 THROUGH 20, INCLUSIVE,
Defendants
Hearing Date: 6/15/2021 9 a.m.
Department 22
Judge: HONORABLE BRYAN FOSTER
The court finds:
1. The Plaintiff has filed an application seeking service of summons and complaint by publication upon the Defendant.
2. After inquiry of the Plaintiff, it appears to the Court that the Plaintiff does not now know where the Defendant live(s). It appears that the Plaintiff has made reasonable efforts to find out where the Defendant(s) is/(are) living but has not been able to find out that information, and it appears that the Plaintiff has done all things reasonably necessary to try to find out where the Defendant is living. Defendant cannot with reasonable diligence, be served in another manner specified by the California Code of Civil Procedure § 415.10 et Seq. as shown by the declaration attached hereto.
3. The Plaintiff is allowed to give notice to the Defendant(s) All Persons Unknown Claiming Any Legal or Equitable Right, Title, Estate, Lien or Interest in the Property Described in the Complaint Adverse of Plaintiff’s Title, or Any Cloud of Plaintiff’s Title Thereto, by publication as is provided by Code of Civil Procedure section 415.10.
It is so ordered Dated 2-2-2021
BRYAN F. FOSTER, Judge
By Veronica Gonzalez, Deputy
MICHAEL C. MADDUX, ESQ.
1894 COMMERCENTER WEST, SUITE 108
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92408
Telephone No: (909) 890-2350
Attorney for petitioner Refugio Robelo
DATE (Fecha): 07/02/19
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on: 4/09, 4/16, 4/23 & 4/30 2021.
ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR ORDER ALLOWING SERVICE BY PUBLICATION
CASE NUMBER (NUMERO DEL CASO) CIVDS2018889
IN RE: REFUGIO ROBELO, Plaintiff
vs.
DAVID ZEPEDA, TRUSTEE OF THE DAVID ROSE, IVY KIRBY, JACK CADMAN, LYDIA CADMAN, ALBERT GUSTON, FRANCE GUSTON, TRUST; SB MANAGEMENT, BUSINESS UNKNOWN; ALL PERSONS UNKNOWN CLAIMING ANY LEGAL OR EQUITABLE RIGHT, TITLE, ESTATE, LIEN OR INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THE COMPLAINT ADVERSE OF PLAINTIFF’S TITLE, OR ANY CLOUD OF PLAINTIFF’S TITLE THERETO, AND DOES 1 THROUGH 20, INCLUSIVE,
Defendants
Hearing Date: 6/15/2021 9 a.m.
Department 22
Judge: HONORABLE BRYAN FOSTER
The court finds:
1. The Plaintiff has filed an application seeking service of summons and complaint by publication upon the Defendant.
2. After inquiry of the Plaintiff, it appears to the Court that the Plaintiff does not now know where the Defendant live(s). It appears that the Plaintiff has made reasonable efforts to find out where the Defendant(s) is/(are) living but has not been able to find out that information, and it appears that the Plaintiff has done all things reasonably necessary to try to find out where the Defendant is living. Defendant cannot with reasonable diligence, be served in another manner specified by the California Code of Civil Procedure § 415.10 et Seq. as shown by the declaration attached hereto.
3. The Plaintiff is allowed to give notice to the Defendant(s) DAVID ZEPEDA, TRUSTEE OF THE DAVID ROSE, IVY KIRBY, JACK CADMAN, LYDIA CADMAN, ALBERT GUSTON, FRANCE GUSTON, TRUST; SB MANAGEMENT, BUSINESS UNKNOWN, by publication as is provided by Code of Civil Procedure section 415.10.
It is so ordered Dated 2-2-2021
BRYAN F. FOSTER, Judge
By Veronica Gonzalez, Deputy
MICHAEL C. MADDUX, ESQ.
1894 COMMERCENTER WEST, SUITE 108
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92408
Telephone No: (909) 890-2350
Attorney for petitioner Refugio Robelo
DATE (Fecha): 07/02/19
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on: 4/09, 4/16, 4/23 & 4/30 2021.

ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR ORDER ALLOWING SERVICE BY PUBLICATION
CASE NUMBER (NUMERO DEL CASO) CIVDS2018889
IN RE: REFUGIO ROBELO, Plaintiff
vs.
DAVID ZEPEDA, TRUSTEE OF THE DAVID ROSE, IVY KIRBY, JACK CADMAN, LYDIA CADMAN, ALBERT GUSTON, FRANCE GUSTON, TRUST; SB MANAGEMENT, BUSINESS UNKNOWN; ALL PERSONS UNKNOWN CLAIMING ANY LEGAL OR EQUITABLE RIGHT, TITLE, ESTATE, LIEN OR INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THE COMPLAINT ADVERSE OF PLAINTIFF’S TITLE, OR ANY CLOUD OF PLAINTIFF’S TITLE THERETO, AND DOES 1 THROUGH 20, INCLUSIVE,
Defendants
Hearing Date: 6/15/2021 9 a.m.
Department 22
Judge: HONORABLE BRYAN FOSTER
The court finds:
1. The Plaintiff has filed an application seeking service of summons and complaint by publication upon the Defendant.
2. After inquiry of the Plaintiff, it appears to the Court that the Plaintiff does not now know where the Defendant live(s). It appears that the Plaintiff has made reasonable efforts to find out where the Defendant(s) is/(are) living but has not been able to find out that information, and it appears that the Plaintiff has done all things reasonably necessary to try to find out where the Defendant is living. Defendant cannot with reasonable diligence, be served in another manner specified by the California Code of Civil Procedure § 415.10 et Seq. as shown by the declaration attached hereto.
3. The Plaintiff is allowed to give notice to the Defendant(s) SB MANAGEMENT, by publication as is provided by Code of Civil Procedure section 415.10.
It is so ordered Dated 2-2-2021
BRYAN F. FOSTER, Judge
By Veronica Gonzalez, Deputy
MICHAEL C. MADDUX, ESQ.
1894 COMMERCENTER WEST, SUITE 108
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92408
Telephone No: (909) 890-2350
Attorney for petitioner Refugio Robelo
DATE (Fecha): 07/02/19
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on: 4/09, 4/16, 4/23 & 4/30 2021.
FBN 20210001983
The following entity is doing business as COLLECTIVE X 4133 E ADDINGTON CIRCLE ANAHEIM, CA 92807: ELIAS CONTESSOTTO 4133 E ADDINGTON CIRCLE ANAHEIM, CA 92807
This Business is Conducted By: AN INDIVIDUAL
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/ ELIAS CONTESSOTTO
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 2/26/2021
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, Deputy 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 3/26, 4/2, 4.9 & 4/16, 2021

FBN 20210001984
The following entity is doing business as DTV LOYALTY PROMO 2661 SOUTH CARL PLACE SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92408: ELISHA JAVED 2661 SOUTH CARL PLACE SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92408
This Business is Conducted By: AN INDIVIDUAL
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/ ELISHA JAVED
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 2/26/2021
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, Deputy 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 3/26, 4/2, 4.9 & 4/16, 2021

FBN 20210001982
The following entity is doing business as AMERICAN CAPITAL FUNDING 17211 PENACOVA ST CHINO HILLS, CA 91709: JOYCE ARCE 17211 PENACOVA ST CHINO HILLS, CA 91709
This Business is Conducted By: AN INDIVIDUAL
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/ JOYCE ARCE
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 2/26/2021
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, Deputy 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 3/26, 4/2, 4.9 & 4/16, 2021
FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME
STATEMENT FILE NO-20210003542
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: Gearup Scuba, 14582 Pipeline Ave, Chino, CA 91710, The YSJL Corp, 1456 S Briar Ave, Ontario, CA 91762
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/ Joe Yong Ping Lin
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 04/06/2021
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: 03/30/2021
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).

04/09/21, 04/16/2021, 04/23/21, 04/30/21

FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME
STATEMENT FILE NO-20210002449
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: La Bella Salon Suites, 5541 Arrow Hwy Suite A, Montclair, CA 91763, Toni Cummings, 461 Euclid Ave, Upland, CA 91786
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/ Toni Cummings
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 03/11/21
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: 02/21/21
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).
04/09/21, 04/16/2021, 04/23/21, 04/30/21

FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME
STATEMENT FILE NO-20210003230

The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: Serrot Beauty Salon, 668 N. Mountain Avenue, Upland, CA 91786, Mailing Address: 390 Caliente Dr, Norco, CA 92860, Alfredo Torres, 390 Caliente Dr, Norco, CA 92860
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/ Alfredo Torres
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 03/29/2021
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: 03/17/2021
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).
04/09/21, 04/16/2021, 04/23/21, 04/30/21

FBN 20210000017 The following person is doing business as BEL AIR BLVD 14762 SHADOW DRIVE FONTANA, CA 92337 JASMINE HENDERSON [and] JANAYA HENDERSON 14762 SHADOW DRIVE FONTANA, CA 92337, TAESHAWNA CLEMONS, 14762 SHADOW DRIVE, FONTANA, CA 92337 This Business is Conducted By: A GENERAL PARTNERSHIP 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/ JASMINE HENDERSON This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 1/04/2021 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, Deputy 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 1/29, 2/5, 2/12 & 2/19, 2021 & Corrected on 03/05/21, 03/12/21, 03/19/21, 03/26/21 & 04/09/21, 04/16/21, 04/23/21, 04/30/21

FBN 20210002262 The following person is doing business as FP CO 10622 BRYANT ST SPC 62 YUCAIPA, CA 92399: FREDERICO A. PALMA 10622 BRYANT ST SPC 62 YUCAIPA, CA 92399 [and] GIGLYOLLA P. PALMA 10622 BRYANT ST SPC 62 YUCAIPA, CA 92399 This Business is Conducted By: A MARRIED COUPLE 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/ FREDERICO A PALMA This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 3/4/2021 I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office. Began Transacting Business: FEBRUARY 4, 2021 County Clerk, Deputy I137 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 therights of another under federal, state, or common law (see section 14400 et. Seq. Business & Professions Code). Published in the San

Bernardino County Sentinel on 3/5/ 3/12, 3/19 & 3/26, 2021 & Corrected on: 04/09/21, 04/16/21, 04/23/21, 04/30/21

ABANDONMENT OF AN FBN 20210003322
The following entity was doing business as GAMESTOP 3536 1883 N. CAMPUS AVENUE, SUITE B UPLAND, CA 91784: GAMESTOP, INC 625 WESTPORT PARKWAY GRAPEVINE, TEXAS 76051 State of Incorporation: MN Reg. No.: C1969245
Date of current filing: 11/16/2020
Previous FBN #: FBN20200010519
Mailing Address: 625 WESTPORT PARKWAY GRAPEVINE, TX 76051
This Business is Conducted By: A CORPORATION
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/ GEORGE E. SHERMAN
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 03/30/2021 I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: DECEMBER 15, 2005
County Clerk, Deputy I6733
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 April 16, 23, and 30 & May 7, 2021.

ABANDONMENT OF AN FBN 20210003320
The following entity is doing business as GAMESTOP 1296 222 INLAND CENTER DRIVE SAN BERNARDINO CA 92408: GAMESTOP, INC 625 WESTPORT PARKWAY GRAPEVINE, TEXAS 76051 State of Incorporation: MN Reg. No.: C1969245
Mailing Address: 625 WESTPORT PARKWAY GRAPEVINE, TX 76051
Date of Current Filing: 11/16/2020
Previous FBN#: FBN20200010515
This Business is Conducted By: A CORPORATION
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/ GEORGE E. SHERMAN
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 03/30/2021 I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office. Began Transacting Business: JUNE 4, 1996
County Clerk, Deputy I6733
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 April 16, 23, and 30 & May 7, 2021.

ABANDONMENT OF AN FBN 20210003326
The following entity is doing business as GAMESTOP 5047 2094 W, REDLANDS BOULEVAED, SUITE K REDLANDS, CA 92373: GAMESTOP, INC 625 WESTPORT PARKWAY GRAPEVINE, TEXAS 76051 State of Incorporation: MN Reg. No.: C1969245
Mailing Address: 625 WESTPORT PARKWAY GRAPEVINE, TX 76051
This Business is Conducted By: A CORPORATION
Date of Current Filing: 11/16/20
Former FBN#: FBN20200010533
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/ GEORGE E. SHERMAN
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 03/30/2021 I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office. Began Transacting Business: September 25, 2003
County Clerk, Deputy I6733
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 April 16, 23, and 30 & May 7, 2021.
NOTICE OF CONSERVATORSHIP OF THE ESTATE OF VERONICA WEBER aka VERONICA STONE
Case Number CONPS2000324
To any and all persons interested in the ESTATE of VERONICA WEBER aka VERONICA STONE;
Notice is hereby given that JENIFER FEJZIC, proposed conservator, has filed a PETITION FOR APPOINTMENT of PROBATE CONSERVATOR of the ESTATE of VERONICA WEBER aka VERONICA STONE, proposed conservatee
This notice is required by law. This notice does not require you to appear in court but you may attend the hearing if you wish.
A hearing on the matter will be held as follows:
June 8, 2021 10 a.m. Department S-36
The address of the court is Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, 247 West Third Street, San Bernardino, CA 92415, San Bernardino District.
Attorney for the Petitioner: Jennifer M. Daniel, Esquire
220 Nordina St.
Redlands, CA 92373
Telephone No: (909) 792-9244 Fax No: (909) 235-4733
Email address: jennifer@lawofficeofjenniferdaniel.com
Attorney for JENIFER FEJZIC
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel April 16, 23, and 30 & May 7 and 14, 2021.

FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME STATEMENT FILE NO-20210003902
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: CJRL Capital Corp, 10535 E Foothill Blvd #460, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730, CJRL Capital Corp, 10535 E Foothill Blvd #460, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
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/Jubilee Figueroa-Acosta
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 04/14/21
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: 03/01/2021
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).
04/16/2021, 04/23/21, 04/30/21, 05/07/21

FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME STATEMENT FILE NO-20210003026
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: Mind Growers, 1035 Driftwood Street, Upland, CA 91784, Mailing Address: PO Box 1094, Claremont, CA 91711, Alejandro Segura-Mora, 1035 Driftwood Street, Upland, CA 91784
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/ Alejandro Segura-Mora
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 03/23/2021
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: 11/01/2006
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).
04/16/2021, 04/23/21, 04/30/21, 05/07/21

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR CHANGE OF NAME CASE NUMBER CIVSB2105448
TO ALL INTERESTED PERSONS: Petitioner: Richard Moore filed with this court for a decree changing names as follows:
Richard Richy Moore to Richard Moore
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: 05/22/21
Time: 9:00 a.m.
Department: S17
The address of the court is Superior Court of California,County of San Bernardino, San Bernardino District – Civil Division, 247 West Third Street, Same as above, San Bernardino, CA 92415, San Bernardino
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: February 19, 2021
Lynn M. Poncin
Judge of the Superior Court.
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 04/16/21, 04/23/21, 04/30/21, 05/07/21
FBN 202100044494
The following entity is doing business as RESILIENT MARTIAL ARTS AND FITNESS 8654 BAY LAUREL STREET CHINO, CAL 91708: EXCELLENT ENGLISH EXPERIENCE, INC. 8654 BAY LAUREL STREET CHINO, CAL 91708
This Business is Conducted By: A CORPORATION
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/ GYANGDI LIU
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 4/29/2021
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: APRIL 23, 2021
County Clerk, Deputy 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 4/30, 5/7, 5/14 & 5/21, 2021

NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF: JANICE LOUISE MANSELL
CASE NO. PROPS 2100420
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of JANICE LOUISE MANSELL
A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by SANDRA MARIE MANSELL in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that SANDRA MARIE MANSELL 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 MAY 27, 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.
Amy Gamez-Reyes, Deputy
APRIL 9, 2021
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: DECEMBER 29, 2020
Attorney for the Sandra Marie Mansell:
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 4/23, 4/30 & 5/7, 2021.

NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF: RICHARD SILVA HERNANDEZ
CASE NO. PROPS 2100387
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of RICHARD SILVA HERNNDEZ has been filed by SHAWNA HERNANDEZ in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BRNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that SHAWNA HERNANDEZ be appointed as personal representative to administer the estate of the decedent.
THE PETITION requests authority to administer the estate under the Independent Administration of Estates Act. (This authority will allow the personal representative to take many actions without obtaining court approval. Before taking certain very important actions, however, the personal representative will be required to give notice to interested persons unless they have waived notice or consented to the proposed action.) The independent administration authority will be granted unless an interested person files an objection to the petition and shows good cause why the court should not grant the authority.
A hearing on the petition will be held MAY 25, 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.
Kimberly Tilley, Deputy
APRIL 1, 2021
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: APRIL 1, 2021
Attorney for the Shawna Hernandez:
R. SAM PRICE SBN 208603
PRICE LAW FIRM, APC
300 E STATE STREET SUITE 620
REDLANDS, CA 92373
(909) 475 8800
sam@pricelawfirm.com
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 4/23, 4/30 & 5/7, 2021.

FBN 20210003107
The following entity is doing business as RUSTIC ROOT DESIGNS 10259 DORSET STREET RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730: BRIANDA MEEWIS MENDOZA 10259 DORSET STREET RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730
This Business is Conducted By: AN INDIVIDUAL
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/ BRIANDA MEEWIS MENDOZA
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 3/25/2021
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, Deputy 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 4/23, 4/30, 5/7 & 5/14, 2021
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR CHANGE OF NAME CASE NUMBER CIVSB2107348
TO ALL INTERESTED PERSONS: Petitioner: YILDA MARLENA CASTILLO filed with this court for a decree changing names as follows:
YILDA MARLENA CASTILLO to HILDA CASTILLO
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: 05/24/21
Time: 9:00 a.m.
Department: S17
The address of the court is Superior Court of California,County of San Bernardino, San Bernardino District – Civil Division, 247 West Third Street, Same as above, San Bernardino, CA 92415, San Bernardino
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: April 12, 2021
Lynn M. Poncin
Judge of the Superior Court.
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 4/23, 4/30, 5/7 & 5/14, 2021

T.S. No.: NR-51507-CA Loan No. *****7224 APN: 0227-193-03-0-000 NOTICE OF TRUSTEE’S SALE YOU ARE IN DEFAULT UNDER A DEED OF TRUST DATED 5/4/2018.  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: Bryan Bradshaw and Lauren Bradshaw, husband and wife Duly Appointed Trustee: Nationwide Reconveyance, LLC Recorded 5/8/2018 as Instrument No. 2018-0165816 in book XX, page XX   of Official Records in the office of the Recorder of San Bernardino County, California, Date of Sale: 5/24/2021 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: $795,045.94 Street Address or other common designation of real property: 13345 Rogue River Dr. Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91739 A.P.N.: 0227-193-03-0-000 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 Web site www.superiordefault.com, using the file number assigned to this case NR-51507-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 NR-51507-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: 4/19/2021 Nationwide Reconveyance, LLC 5677 Oberlin Drive, Suite 210 San Diego, California 92121 Sale Line: (714) 986-9342 By: Rhonda Rorie, Trustee (4/30/21, 5/7/21, 5/14/21 TS# NR-51507-ca SDI-20865) Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on April 30, May 7 & May 14, 2021

T.S. No. 18-20970-SP-CA Title No. 180549201-CA-VOI A.P.N. 1011-415-27-0-000 NOTICE OF TRUSTEE’S SALE. YOU ARE IN DEFAULT UNDER A DEED OF TRUST DATED 11/17/2005. 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: Junel J. Noriega and Claudia Noriega, husband and wife as joint tenants Duly Appointed Trustee: National Default Servicing Corporation Recorded 11/29/2005 as Instrument No. 2005-0889600 (or Book, Page) of the Official Records of San Bernardino County, CA. Date of Sale: 05/18/2021 at 1:00 PM Place of Sale: At the Main (South) Entrance to the City of Chino Civic Center, 13220 Central Avenue, Chino, CA. 91710 Estimated amount of unpaid balance and other charges: $275,445.73 Street Address or other common designation of real property: 957 South Mountain Avenue #61 Ontario, CA 91762 A.P.N.: 1011-415-27-0-000 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 18-20970-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: 04/16/2021 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 CPP351027
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on April 30, May 7 & May 14, 2021.

FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME
STATEMENT FILE NO-20210004013
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: Bravo Burgers-Redlands, 1911 Redlands Blvd., Redlands, CA 92373, Mailing Address: 41847 Via Balderama, Temecula, CA 92592, Vnat Restaurants, Inc., 1911 Redlands Blvd, Redlands, CA 92373
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/Emmanuel Vitakis
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 04/19/2021
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: 01/01/2005
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).
04/30/21, 05/07/21, 05/14/21, 05/21/21

FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME
STATEMENT FILE NO-20210004082
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: Mason Notary Excellence, 11369 Marfa St, Fontana, CA 92337, Mailing Address: 11369 Marfa St, Fontana, CA 92337, Darriell Mason, 11369 Marfa St, Fontana, CA 92337
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/Darriell Mason
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 04/20/2021
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: 11/20/2020
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).
04/30/21, 05/07/21, 05/14/21, 05/21/21

FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME
STATEMENT FILE NO-20210003903
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: S&S Digital Conversions, 7211 Haven Ave., Suite E122, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91701, Sheldon S Smith, 5613 Carmello Court, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91739
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/Sheldon S Smith
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 04/14/2021
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: 04/04/2021
County Clerk, s/
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).
04/30/21, 05/07/21, 05/14/21, 05/21/21

FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME
STATEMENT FILE NO-20210003284
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: Perkins Moving Company, 9353 19TH St, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91701, John D. Perkins, 9353 19TH St, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91701
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/John D Perkins
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 03/30/2021
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: 03/23/2021
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).
04/30/21, 05/07/21, 05/14/21, 05/21/21
T.S. No. 18-20970-SP-CA Titl
NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF:
JAMES CARRITUE
NO. PROPS 2100519
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of JAMES CARRITUE
A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by MARC E. GROSSMAN in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that MARC E. GROSSMAN 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 a.m. on JUNE 16, 2021 at Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, 247 West Third Street, San Bernardino, CA 92415, San Bernardino District.
Filed: MARCH 10, 2021
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: James Lee, Esquire
100 N. Euclide Avenue, Second Floor
Upland, CA 91786
Telephone No: (909) 608-7426
Email address: mail@wefight4you.com
Attorney for Fred Edward Carlson
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel April 30, May 7 & May 14 2, 2021.
CASE NUMBER: (Numero del Caso): 37-2020-00000926
ON FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT SUMMONS
(CITACION JUDICIAL)
NOTICE TO DEFENDANT: (AVISO AL DEMANDADO): CHU-JAN CHENG, an individual, HSIANG-MAN CHENG, an individual, PAUL CHENG, an individual, and DOES 1 – 10, inclusive.
YOU ARE BEING SUED BY PLAINTIFF: (LO ESTA DEMANDANDO EL DEMANDANTE): TAN-HUI LIN A.K.A. KATY LIN, an individual.
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 and legal papers are 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 infor-mation 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 despues de que le entreguen esta citacion y papeles legales para presentar una respuesta por escrito en esta corte y hacer que se entregue una copia al demandante. Una carta o una llamada telefonica no lo protegen. Su respuesta por escrito tiene que estar en formato legal correcto si desea que procesen su caso en la corte. Es posible que haya un formulario que usted pueda usar para su respuesta. Puede encontrar estos formularios de la corte y mas informacion 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 presentacion, pida al secretario de la corte 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 corte le podra quitar su sueldo, dinero y bienes sin mas advertencia.
Hay otros requisitos legales. Es recomendable que llame a un abogado inmediatamente. Si no conoce a un abogado, puede llamar a un servicio de remision a abogados. Si no puede pagar a un abogado, es posible que cumpla con los requisitos para obtener servicios legales gratuitos 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 poniendose 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 por imponer un gravamen sobre cualquier recuperacion de $10,000 o mas de valor recibida mediante un acuerdo o una concesion de arbitraje en un caso de derecho civil. Tiene que pagar el gravamen de la corte antes de que la corte pueda desechar el caso.
The name and address of the court is: (El nombre y direccion de la corte es): SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO – CENTRAL DISTRICT, 330 West Broadway, San Diego, California 92101
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 demandante que no tiene abogado, es): MONISHA A. COELHO, ALVARADOSMITH, APC, 633 West Fifth St., Suite 900, Los Angeles, CA 90071 (213) 229-2400
Date: (Fecha) OCT 15, 2020
Clerk (Secretario)
By: M. MC CLURE, Deputy (Adjunto)
CN976760 CHENG Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 4/30, 5/7, 5/14 & 5/21, 2021

CASE NUMBER: (Numero del Caso): CIVDS2000458
ON FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT SUMMONS
(CITACION JUDICIAL)
NOTICE TO DEFENDANT: (AVISO AL DEMANDADO): CHU-JAN CHENG, an individual, HSIANG-MAN CHENG, an individual, PAUL CHENG, an individual, and DOES 1 – 10, inclusive.
YOU ARE BEING SUED BY PLAINTIFF: (LO ESTA DEMANDANDO EL DEMANDANTE): YTS DEVELOPMENT, LLC, a California Limited Liability Corporation.
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 and legal papers are 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 infor-mation 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 despues de que le entreguen esta citacion y papeles legales para presentar una respuesta por escrito en esta corte y hacer que se entregue una copia al demandante. Una carta o una llamada telefonica no lo protegen. Su respuesta por escrito tiene que estar en formato legal correcto si desea que procesen su caso en la corte. Es posible que haya un formulario que usted pueda usar para su respuesta. Puede encontrar estos formularios de la corte y mas informacion 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 presentacion, pida al secretario de la corte 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 corte le podra quitar su sueldo, dinero y bienes sin mas advertencia.
Hay otros requisitos legales. Es recomendable que llame a un abogado inmediatamente. Si no conoce a un abogado, puede llamar a un servicio de remision a abogados. Si no puede pagar a un abogado, es posible que cumpla con los requisitos para obtener servicios legales gratuitos 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 poniendose 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 por imponer un gravamen sobre cualquier recuperacion de $10,000 o mas de valor recibida mediante un acuerdo o una concesion de arbitraje en un caso de derecho civil. Tiene que pagar el gravamen de la corte antes de que la corte pueda desechar el caso.
The name and address of the court is: (El nombre y direccion de la corte es): SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO – CIVIL DIVISION, 247 West Third Street, San Bernardino, CA 92415-0210
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 demandante que no tiene abogado, es): MONISHA A. COELHO, ALVARADOSMITH, APC, 633 West Fifth St., Suite 900, Los Angeles, CA 90071 (213) 229-2400
Date: (Fecha) OCT 28, 2020
Clerk (Secretario)
By: SANDRA ORTEGA, Deputy (Adjunto)
CN976759 LMXC3
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 4/30, 5/7, 5/14 & 5/21, 2021

NOTICE OF SALE OF VESSEL
Notice is hereby given the undersigned will sell the following vessel at lien sale at said address below on: 05/07/2021 9:00 am
1601NU, ZZN80812D595, CA
DATE OF SALE-05/07/2021
TIME OF SALE-09:00 AM
LOCATION OF SALE-17822 FOOTHILL BLVD UNIT 6 FONTANA CA 92336
To be sold by ONLY 1’Z GARAGE   17822 FOOTHILL BLVD UNIT 6 FONTANA CA 92336
Said sale is for the purpose of satisfying lien for together with costs of advertising and expenses of sale.
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on: 04/30/21

NOTICE OF SALE OF VESSEL
Notice is hereby given the undersigned will sell the following vessel at lien sale at said address below on: 05/07/2021 9:00 am
1602NU, ZZN80935D595, CA
DATE OF SALE-05/07/2021
TIME OF SALE-09:00 AM
LOCATION OF SALE-17822 FOOTHILL BLVD UNIT 6 FONTANA CA 92336
To be sold by ONLY 1’Z GARAGE   17822 FOOTHILL BLVD UNIT 6 FONTANA CA 92336
Said sale is for the purpose of satisfying lien for together with costs of advertising and expenses of sale.
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on: 04/30/21

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR CHANGE OF NAME CASE NUMBER CIVSB2108532
TO ALL INTERESTED PERSONS: Petitioner: JAMES FLANNIGAN IV filed with this court for a decree changing names as follows:
JAMES FLANNIGAN IV to Flannigan IV, James
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: 06/03/21
Time: 9:00 a.m.
Department: S16
The address of the court is Superior Court of California,County of San Bernardino, San Bernardino District – Civil Division, 247 West Third Street, Same as above, San Bernardino, CA 92415, San Bernardino
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: April 20, 2021
Lynn M. Poncin
Judge of the Superior Court.
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 04/30/21, 05/07/21, 05/14/21 & 05/21/21

FBN 20210004194
The following entity is doing business as MONTCLAIR PLAZA DENTAL GROUP 8660 CENTRAL AVE. STE A, MONTCLAIR, CA 91763: S. DAVE SRIKUREJA, DDS, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 25802 HUDSON CT. LOMA LINDA, CA 92354
A California Corporation  C4258718
This Business is Conducted By: A CORPORATION
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.
SUTHEEP DAVE SRIKUREJA
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 4/22/2021
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, Deputy 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 04/30/21, 05/07/21, 05/14/21 & 05/21/21

FBN 20210002374 The following person is doing business as: ADORA CONCEPTS 12168 HUMBOLDT PL CHINO, CA 91710; MARLYN A. VIRAY 12168 HUMBOLDT PL CHINO, CA 91710The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUALThe registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/ABy 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/ MARYLN A. VIRAY, OWNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 03/10/2021I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/DeputyNotice-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 04/09/2021, 04/16/2021, 04/23/2021, 04/30/2021 CNBB15202105IR

FBN 20210002925 The following person is doing business as: BLUE HEAVEN TRANSPORT 7541 STONEY CREEK DR. HIGHLAND, CA 92346; DANNY MONTELONGO 7541 STONEY CREEK DR. HIGHLAND, CA 92346The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUALThe registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/ABy 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/ DANNY MONTELONGO, OWNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 03/11/2021I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/DeputyNotice-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 04/09/2021, 04/16/2021, 04/23/2021, 04/30/2021

CNBB15202106IR FBN 20210003361 The following person is doing business as: TIMELESS CARDS & COINS 2185 W. COLLEGE AVE. APT #3065 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92407;[ MAILING ADDRESS 2999 KENDALL DR. SUITE 204-117 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92407]; RIGOBERTO AVILA MURRIETA 2185W. COLLEGE AVE. APT #3065 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92407The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUALThe registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/ABy 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/ RIGOBERTO AVILA MURRIETA, OWNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 03/31/2021I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/DeputyNotice-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 04/09/2021, 04/16/2021, 04/23/2021, 04/30/2021 CNBB15202107IR

FBN 20210003551 The following person is doing business as: DEB’S THREADS 450 MARTIN AVE COLTON, CA 92324; DEBBIE M WALKER 450 MARTIN AVE COLTON, CA 92324The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUALThe registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/ABy 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/ DEBBIE M. WALKER, OWNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 04/06/2021I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/DeputyNotice-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 04/09/2021, 04/16/2021, 04/23/2021, 04/30/2021 CNBB15202108IR

FBN 20210002825 The following person is doing business as: LA TIENDITA 2215 W 3RD AVE SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92407; SILVIA BRAMBILA
ARECHIGA 2215 W 3RD AVE SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92407The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUALThe registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/ABy 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/ SILVIA BRAMBILA ARECHIGA, OWNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 03/18/2021I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/DeputyNotice-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 04/09/2021, 04/16/2021, 04/23/2021, 04/30/2021 CNBB15202109MT

FBN 20210003046 The following person is doing business as: THOMAS AND ASSOCIATES MARKETINGAND PROCESSING 8291 UTICA AVE #100B RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730; CLAUDIA N THOMAS 8291 UTICA AVE #100B RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUALThe registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/ABy 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/ CLAUDIA N. THOMAS, OWNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 03/23/2021I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/DeputyNotice-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 04/09/2021, 04/16/2021, 04/23/2021, 04/30/2021 CNBB15202110MT

FBN 20210003258 The following person is doing business as: ARMSTRONG INSURANCE SERVICES 11161 ANDERSON STREET SUITE 105 LOMA LINDA, CA 92354; RENEE S ARMTRONG 24784 DAISY AVE LOMA LINDA, CA 92354The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUALThe registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: MAR 14, 2021By 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/ RENEE S ARMSTRONG, OWNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 03/29/2021I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/DeputyNotice-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 04/09/2021, 04/16/2021, 04/23/2021, 04/30/2021 CNBB15202111CH

FBN 20210003201 The following person is doing business as: ALL PROFIT ENTERTAINMENT 77 S WASHINGTON ST SEATTLE, WA 98104; ALEX J BATES 77 S WASHINGTON ST SEATTLE, WA 98104The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUALThe registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/ABy 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/ ALEX J. BATES, OWNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 03/26/2021I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/DeputyNotice-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 04/09/2021, 04/16/2021, 04/23/2021, 04/30/2021 CNBB14202112MT

FBN 20210003199 The following person is doing business as: ALPHA LOGISTICS DISTRIBUTION 2069 SAN BERNARDINO AVE APT. #1179; JACQUELINE C VASQUEZ 2069 SAN BERNARDINO AVE APT. #1179 COLTON, CA 92324The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/ABy 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/ JACQUELINE C. VASQUEZ, OWNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 03/26/2021I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/DeputyNotice-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 04/09/2021, 04/16/2021, 04/23/2021, 04/30/2021 CNBB15202123MT

FBN 20210003196 The following person is doing business as: MIND YOUR BEES-WAX 15767 BUCK POINT LANE FONTANA, CA 92336; ABRAYSV LLC 15767 BUCK POINT LANE FONTANA, CA 92336The business is conducted by: A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANYThe registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/ABy 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/ CURTIS L. BRAY, MANAGING MEMBER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 03/26/2021I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/DeputyNotice-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 04/09/2021, 04/16/2021, 04/23/2021, 04/30/2021 CNBB15202114M

FBN 20210003551 The following person is doing business as: DEB’S THREADS 450 MARTIN AVE COLTON, CA 92324; DEBBIE M WALKER 450 MARTIN AVE COLTON, CA 92324The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUALThe registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/ABy 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/ DEBBIE M. WALKER, OWNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 04/06/2021I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/DeputyNotice-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 04/23/2021, 04/30/2021, 05/07/2021, 05/14/2021 CNBB16202101IR

FBN 20210003518 The following person is doing business as: OZS FASHION N SPORTS WORLD 13146 WARM SANDS CT VICTORVILLE, CA 92394; MIRAZA HASSAN 13146 WARMS SANDS CT VICTORVILLE, CA 92394The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUALThe registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/ABy 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/ MIRZA HASSAN, OWNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 04/05/2021I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/DeputyNotice-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 04/23/2021, 04/30/2021, 05/07/2021, 05/14/2021 CNBB16202102MT

FBN 20210003586 The following person is doing business as: GARMETS OF PRAISE 2492 TORJAN WAY UPLAND, CA 91786; JULIA CORSINI VAZQUEZ 2492 TROJAN WAY UPLAND, CA 91786The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUALThe registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/ABy 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/ JULIA CORSINI VAZQUEZ, OWNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 04/06/2021I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/DeputyNotice-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 04/23/2021, 04/30/2021, 05/07/2021, 05/14/2021 CNBB16202103MT

FBN 20210003593 The following person is doing business as: E & J HAULING SERVICES 8851 SAN BERNARDINO ROAD #1 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730; ERIC L SMITH 8851 SAN BERNARDINO ROAD #1 RAANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUALThe registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/ABy 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 L. SMITH, OWNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 04/06/2021I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/DeputyNotice-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 04/23/2021, 04/30/2021, 05/07/2021, 05/14/2021 CNBB16202104MT

FBN 20210003993 The following person is doing business as: SAYULITA 369 1315 HARDT ST UNIT A SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92408; CESAR A SIGALA OORTIZ 1315 HARDT ST UNIT A SANBERNARDINO, CA 92408
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUALThe registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/ABy 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 A. SIGALA ORTIZ, OWNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 04/19/2021I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/DeputyNotice-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 04/23/2021, 04/30/2021, 05/07/2021, 05/14/2021 CNBB16202105S

By clicking on the blue portal below, you can download a PDF of the April 23 San Bernardino county Sentinel.

Sentinel 04-23-21

By Amanda Frye and Mark Gutglueck
The California State Water Resources Control Board today acted to curtail the Arrowhead Spring Water Company’s drafting of prodigious quantities of water from an ecologically sensitive canyon high in the San Bernardino Mountains.
The state has told the company that it must reduce the 62.56 million gallons of water it has been taking out of the San Bernardino Forest annually in recent years to 2.365 million gallons.
The action, which came less than a month after Nestlé Waters of North America divested itself of all of its American water holdings including the Arrowhead brand, recognizes the long-held contention of environmentalists that the water bottling company has for more than three decades been overdrafting water from a spring complex to which its rights are non-existent, disputed or overstated.
Nestlé Waters of North America was until last month owned by Nestlé S.A., a Swiss multinational food and drink processing conglomerate corporation headquartered in Vevey, Vaud, Switzerland.
The State Water Resources Control Board made its determination in the face of a two-year running drought in the Golden State and following numerous complaints of profligate water use by the bottler, which led to a multi-year investigation into Nestle’s unauthorized spring water diversions at the 5,000 foot elevation level in the San Bernardino National Forest.
For 29 years, as the owner of the Arrowhead Drinking Water Company since 1992, Nestlé Waters of North America had been drawing on the order of 60 million gallons of water from Strawberry Canyon on average per year pursuant to a permit issued in 1978 to the former operator of the water bottling concern.
Nestlé extracted the water from the Strawberry Canyon watershed, selling it under the Arrowhead 100% Mountain Spring Water brand name. Nestlé acquired the Strawberry Creek water diversion system from Perrier in 1992. The permits for the water extraction system, consisting of borings, horizontal wells, tunnels, pipelines and other appurtenances, expired in 1987. Nestlé, as did Perrier, maintained its operation in Strawberry Canyon by continuing to pay a $524 annual fee while the Forest Service delayed carrying out the environmental review for the renewal of the permits. The current U.S. Forest Service pipeline permit is around $2,000, and expires in August 2021.
Nestlé’s activity, which has long been decried by environmentalists, came under increasing fire as a statewide drought which lasted for more than five years after it first manifested in 2011 advanced. In 2015 environmental groups were gearing up to file a lawsuit claiming the U.S. Forest Service had violated protocols and harmed the ecology of the mountain by allowing Nestlé Waters North America to continue its operations in Strawberry Canyon for 28 years after its permit expired. At that point, the Forest Service moved to make an environmental review. In the meantime, Nestlé continued its water extraction, pumping an average of 62.56 million gallons of water annually from the San Bernardino Mountains. Environmentalists lodged protests with the water rights division of the California Water Resources Control Board, alleging Nestlé was diverting water without rights, making unreasonable use of the water it was taking, failing to monitor the amount drawn or make an accurate accounting of the water it was taking, and wreaking environmental damage by its action.
Following a two-year investigation, state officials arrived at a tentative determination that Nestlé had the right to divert up to 26 acre-feet of water (8.47 million gallons) per year. Nestlé had gone far beyond the water drafting limit the company was entitled to, the State Water Resources Control Board said, and was actually drafting 192 acre-feet (62.56 million gallons), such that 166 acre-feet (54.09 million gallons) the company was taking was unauthorized, according to a report released on December 21, 2017.
The water rights division recommended that Nestlé immediately end its diversions beyond the 26 acre-foot threshold or otherwise marshal evidence supporting its current level of diversion within 30 days.
While Nestlé continued to maintain it had established rights to roughly 190 acre-feet of water per year in Strawberry Canyon, it was unable to produce any historical record of water rights approaching the volume of its diversion.
On April 23, 2021, the State Water Resources Control board issued a revised report of its investigation and a draft cease and desist order directing the company which now owns the Arrowhead Spring Water Brand bottling company to stop its unlawful activities, which was defined in the cease and desist order as taking any more than 7.26 acre-feet (2.342 million gallons) of water annually out of Strawberry Canyon.
Nestlé Waters of North America’s successor/parent company, BlueTriton, has 20 days to respond to the draft order and request a hearing, or the State Water Board will issue a final order.
The action comes as state agencies are ramping up their efforts to build California’s water resilience amid a second consecutive dry year. At the direction of Governor Gavin Newsom, state agencies are coordinating closely with local water districts and municipalities to track and actively respond to changing conditions and issues that impact public health, safety and the environment.
During the historic December 2011-to-March 2017 drought, the State Water Board’s Division of Water Rights received multiple complaints alleging that Nestlé’s continual water diversions depleted Strawberry Creek, resulting in reduced downstream drinking water supply and impacts on vulnerable environmental resources. The division conducted a field investigation, which led to the tentative quantification of Nestlé’s water rights at 26 acre-feet (8.47 million gallons) annually with recommendations that Nestle only take amounts within its established water rights. Afterward, the State Water Board received an additional 4,000 comments and thousands of pages of information from the public alleging continued excessive water diversions, including that it had utilized 180 acre-feet (58,680,000 gallons) taken from Strawberry Canyon in 2020, which significantly expanded the investigation that culminated with today’s proposed enforcement action.
“It is concerning that these diversions are continuing despite recommendations from the initial report, and while the state is heading into a second dry year,” said Jule Rizzardo, the California State Water Resources Board’s assistant deputy director for the Division of Water Rights. “The state will use its enforcement authority to protect water and other natural resources as we step up our efforts to further build California’s drought resilience.”
The Sentinel’s examination of documentation that Nestlé relied upon in justifying its intensive drafting of water out of Strawberry Canyon illustrates that the Swiss company’s assumption of water rights there relied on inapplicable case law and the substitution of property outside of the National Forest which was misrepresented as being within the National Forest. It thus appears Nestlé is not entitled to the 26 acre-feet or 8.47 million gallons of annual extraction rights credited to it in December 2017, and may not be entitled to the 7.26 acre-feet or 2.365 million gallons the State Water Control Board has now allotted to Arrowhead.
Nestlé Waters of North America, Inc., a corporate subsidiary of the Swiss-owned Nestlé Corporation, acquired an expired permit for a pipeline right-of-way to transport water through the San Bernardino National Forest in the San Bernardino Mountains when it bought out Perrier in 1992. Perrier had acquired the permit when it purchased the BCI-Arrowhead Drinking Water Company, formerly called Arrowhead Puritas, in 1987, at which time the permit was yet active. That permit, which expired in 1988, allowed a pipeline across the forest which transported water extracted from a significant below-ground source in the San Bernardino Mountains. In 1978, Arrowhead Puritas, without renewing the permit for transporting the harvested water from Strawberry Canyon extracted by means of boreholes and horizontal wells, applied to be allowed to continue that activity, for which it paid the U.S. Government $524 per year, then a standard fee for such uses in all National Forests. The Arrowhead Drinking Water Company had assumed water drafting operations from a series of predecessors. But that assumption was based on a dubitable assertion of water extraction rights, for which no basis in the public record exists. Other than renewing the pipeline permit, none of the companies or their corporate predecessors has paid for the forest water it has taken.
In 1929, the California Consolidated Waters Company was formed to merge Los Angeles’ three largest water bottlers and distributors of “Arrowhead Water,” “Puritas Water” and “Liquid Steam.” The property, bottling operations, water distribution and administration of Arrowhead Springs Company, Puritas of California Consumers Company and the water bottling division of Merchants Ice and Storage were all administered by California Consolidated Waters Company. Soon after, California Consolidated Waters, without having obtained any valid authorization or rights, put in place tunnels, boreholes and horizontal wells at the higher elevation of 5,200 feet at the headwaters to Strawberry Creek in Strawberry Canyon.
Charles Anthony, acting president of the Arrowhead Springs resort property and Arrowhead Springs Corporation, sold upper Strawberry Canyon water rights he did not own in the National Forest to California Consolidated Waters Company.
When Nestlé inherited the operation in Strawberry Canyon from Perrier in 1992, it continued to operate under the “Arrowhead Mountain Spring Water Company” shell and the United States Forest Service allowed Nestlé to continue to utilize the expired permit, sending its invoices for the $524 annual charge to use the “irrigation” transmission pipeline in Strawberry Canyon to the Arrowhead Mountain Spring Water Company. It was concern over the ecological devastation this continued water extraction was having that grew into outrage, which resulted in calls for action by the National Forest Service that led to the report released in December 2017.
The state groundwater recordation relating to the Nestlé/Arrowhead water activity, which is now under the control of BlueTrion, is yet listed under Beatrice’s “Arrowhead Drinking Water Co.”
This is a matter of contractual agreements versus water rights holders. The “Arrowhead Springs Water Company” incorporated in Los Angeles had an agreement with the Arrowhead Hot Springs Company (the water rights holder and property owner) extending only to obtaining water from Cold Water Canyon, which was then transported to Los Angeles, bottled, sold and distributed. The water bottler obtained no water rights. It only had a water contract.
Nevertheless, the State Water Board appears to have created a 7.26 annual acre-foot water right for Nestlé from this early water diversion on the private property, even though there is no evidence water rights were transferred from the hotel property to the water bottling entity.
Of crucial importance is that Nestlé’s water withdrawals are taking place on San Bernardino National Forest lands where water has been reserved since its founding on February 25, 1893.
Federal reserve rights and overlaying landowner groundwater rights should apply in this case. Appropriation through adverse possession, known as prescriptive rights, is not applicable to U.S. Forest lands. On record is a single adverse possession case pertaining to the San Bernardino Mountains, what is referred to as the Del Rosa Judgment, which through an adverse appropriation process, gave water rights reserved for the National Forest to the Consolidated Waters Company, a now defunct entity, to which Nestlé made an inappropriate claim. The company has conflated physical springs with spring water, as defined in bottling regulations for food labeling purposes. A foreign entity, Nestlé was never a landowner of, nor in, the National Forest.
There is no documentation that Nestlé or its predecessors-in-interest had any valid water rights in the San Bernardino National Forest for Upper Strawberry Canyon or “Indian Springs” tunnels, from where the water bottled as Arrowhead Spring Water was drawn prior to 1893, nor pre-1914 water rights, as it claimed. The early water bottlers associated with the Arrowhead name drew their water from sources other than Strawberry Creek or Strawberry Canyon. Some contracted water from the Arrowhead Hotel property owners. Some bottlers of “Arrowhead water” were said to use “Los Angeles city” and “hydrant” water. There were multiple companies bottling “Arrowhead water” starting in 1909. The water bottlers and the water rights owners functioned as separate entities pre-1914, which is well-documented by archived lawsuit testimony, judgments and other sources. There is a difference between the water bottling company and the Arrowhead Hotel and Arrowhead Hot Springs property and water rights owner. This is a matter of contractual agreements versus water rights holders.
The “Arrowhead Springs Water Company” incorporated in Los Angeles had only an agreement with the Arrowhead Hot Springs Company (the water rights holder and property owner) to obtain water from Cold Water Canyon, which was then transported to Los Angeles, bottled, sold and distributed. The water bottlers obtained no water rights. They only had a water contract.
The San Bernardino National Forest was established February 25, 1893, thus any claims for water or land within the forest boundaries were required as publicly noticed in 1894. The water rights associated with the Arrowhead Springs Property ultimately stayed with the property as documented in recorded deeds at the San Bernardino County Recorders Office.
Arrowhead Springs Water Company water was from Cold Water Canyon, known as “Agua Fria,” located at the base of Arrowhead Mountain on the NW quarter of Section 12 T1N R4W of the Arrowhead Property. Portions of Cold Water Canyon and its creek are on the Arrowhead Hotel property. Cold water from fissures from stratum on precipices were said to feed Cold Water Creek at this location. A pipeline on the high mesa in this location was run to capture some of this water for bottling. This 1909-1913 water use for bottling is well documented in repeated testimony from the court cases 11399 and 12532 in 1910 and 1913.
There were broken contracts, injunctions and lawsuits between the bottler Arrowhead Springs Water Company and the water rights and property owners, the Arrowhead Hot Springs Company, which caused deteriorated relationships.
In 1912/1913 the Arrowhead Hot Springs Company resolved to build a water bottling facility near the Arrowhead Springs Hotel to bottle and distribute Arrowhead Springs water. The hotel stood at an elevation of roughly 2,000 feet. The water bottling enterprise was then named Arrowhead Springs Company. In 1917, Arrowhead Springs Company moved its water bottling works to a new facility in Los Angeles at Washington and Compton avenues. However, the water rights remained with the property, not the water bottling works.
The Cold Water Canyon creek water was captured in a pipe to transport water for bottling. “Agua Fria” was the name for the water of Cold Water Canyon, which was also referred to as “Indian Springs” in 1917. The spring “Fuente Frio” was also used for water bottling in 1909, according to several sources, as this was listed as Penyugal Cold Springs. Fuente Frio is located in Arrowhead Canyon on the Arrowhead Spring Property in a ravine north of the hot El Penyugal Spring. The Arrowhead Water Company of Los Angeles bottled the contracted water from Cold Water Canyon. Reportedly, the company switched to using water from Fuente Frio during the winter when Cold Water Creek turned muddy. The 1910 lawsuits and fraud charges against Arrowhead Springs Water Company later put the LA Arrowhead Springs Water Company out of business. However, shareholders recapitalized another bottling company, Arrowhead Cold Springs Company, which filed for bankruptcy in 1912.
When Arrowhead Hot Springs Company started its own water bottling company, Arrowhead Springs Company, next to the hotel, it bottled water from the 1,900 foot-elevation Penyugal Springs, the hottest spring below the hotel, along with other springs such as 2,022 elevation Granite Hot Springs on the west mesa near Penyugal and the Fuento Frio cold spring up the canyon from Penyugal. Among the products the company offered were soda and ginger ale, as well as water containing substances that today would be difficult to market. Arrowhead, for example, advertised one bottled water product under the Penyugal Springs label as being high in arsenic and “Arrolax” meant to serve as an aperient or laxative. In very minute quantities, arsenic was then considered a nutrient. Arrowhead Springs water was marketed as high in radiation content.
So, two water companies – Arrowhead Springs Water Company and Arrowhead Hot Springs Water Company – were bottling water and competing to sell and distribute water and products after the relationship between them deteriorated, with lawsuits and injunctions filed. Ads show Arrowhead Springs Water Company’s Arrowhead Springs water was also called Indian medicine water with an American Indian featured on the Arrowhead Water label. The Arrowhead Hot Springs Company was the owner of the Arrowhead Springs Property, and retained the water rights. The business was later Arrowhead Springs Corporation.
The bottled water withdrawals on San Bernardino National Forest lands seem to have started around 1929 with an addition at tunnel 2, at which time the Arrowhead Springs Corporation (Ltd.) sold false rights on forest lands to water bottler and distributor California Consolidated Waters in what appears to have been an attempt to raise funds for a bond debt and use water sources other than those on the hotel property. The Arrowhead Springs Corporation admitted no “warranty” rights above section 12 in T1N R4W, located at the base of the Arrowhead, in an agreement which would have included Indian Springs’ two tunnels 1,000 feet north of the Arrowhead Springs Property boundaries and west of the landmark Arrowhead and the Strawberry Canyon wells/springs and tunnels, at the approximate 5,200 foot elevation.
It was the dubious claims by then-Arrowhead Springs Hotel property owner Charles Anthony that Consolidated Water could could obtain water from the undisclosed forest lands and run a pipeline to the hotel property. Anthony had no right to authorize the water extractions nor the two-mile pipeline.
False claims were acknowledged in some documents. Basically, the false claims made by Arrowhead Springs Corporation to the California Consolidated Waters Company involved false water rights and easements on San Bernardino National Forest lands leading to the unwarranted water withdrawals from the National Forest since 1929.
Arrowhead Springs Corporation didn’t transfer water rights to Consolidated Waters, but rather made up new ones in the San Bernardino National Forest so Consolidated Waters could develop more water sources, give Arrowhead Springs Property more water and promote the Arrowhead name by bottling and selling the water while Arrowhead Springs Corporation profited. The appropriation of non-existent rights became the basis for the adverse possession case involved in the Del Rosa lawsuit.
Federal property is immune from adverse possession; a county court ruling which awarded adversarial rights to a claimant on federal property therefore would not be deemed valid under any circumstances. The federal government was not party to the Del Rosa suit and the San Bernardino National Forest land was not mentioned in the suit. Title insurance clauses exempted water rights title on federal lands, which would have invalidated legal water rights on Forest Service lands to Nestlé’s predecessors-in-interest.
These facts can become confusing if location is not the focus. The “1929 Indian Springs tunnels” referenced in a 1929 letter by San Bernardino lawyer Byron Waters have been documented in survey plat maps filed in Map book 2 pages 18 and 19. According to the 1929 pipeline survey plat map, these tunnels are located in T1N R4W, which when plotted on USGS/USFS maps are located 1,000 feet north and 200 feet west of the NE corner marker of Section 11, placing these tunnels directly on the E ½ of Sec 2 T1N R4W, which is San Bernardino National Forest land. Nestlé’s upper Strawberry Canyon wells/tunnels/springs are also on National Forest lands T2N R3W. Moreover, the Del Rosa Suit never authorized the appropriation of Section 30, where most of the wells are located.
Nonetheless, these “Indian Springs tunnels” and upper Strawberry Canyon water rights, located at the 2,700-foot and 5,000-foot elevations, respectively, were not claimed as reserved at the time of the forest’s founding in 1893. There is no historical record that the Arrowhead Property owners were using these areas in the National Forest for water. Thus, the Indian Springs tunnels like the upper Strawberry Canyon sites appear to be a “taking” of forest land ecosystems and water starting in the 1920s. “Indian Springs” tunnels on the San Bernardino National Forest land T1N R4W E1/2 of Section 2 and the Upper Strawberry Canyon water withdrawal sites T2N R3W were not the site of the water used for the first water bottling and therefore no pre-1914 rights can be conferred in any way.
Moreover, in 1930, Consolidated Waters quitclaimed water rights of these “Indian Springs” tunnels to Arrowhead Springs Corporation on page 125 of Book 648 pg 122. Archived documents indicate that there is an “Indian Springs” tunnel pipeline running under U.S. Forest land. Nestlé has no valid pre-1914 water rights in the San Bernardino National Forest. The Del Rosa lawsuit was an adverse possession suit that purports no valid claim of forest water or land for Nestlé’s predecessor-in interest within the San Bernardino National Forest boundaries.
The 1929 letter from Byron Waters appears to be an attempt to build the adverse possession case for California Consolidated Waters and Arrowhead Springs Corporation. Byron Waters’ letter is an admission that these “Indian Springs tunnels” are man-made tunnels by appropriation without permission and on federal lands with a legal description that confirms their location on San Bernardino National Forest land. Federal property is immune from adverse possession. These Indian Spring tunnels are not the water source for pre-1914 water bottling which took place on private land contained on the Arrowhead Springs Property.
Federal and State property adverse possession immunity was never considered in the Del Rosa lawsuit or by the State Water Resource Control Board. The San Bernardino National Forest was founded on February 25, 1893 and public notice to stake a claim within the boundaries was given for a 90-day period in 1894. Thus, any claim of water within the San Bernardino National Forest would be subject to the 1894 rule and not the 1914 rule.
Boundaries and surveys are highly relevant in this case. The United States Geological Service’s and the United States Forest Service’s topographical maps of the San Bernardino Mountains are properly used as base maps to establish forest service versus private property boundaries. It is clearly evident from the historical record that private owners did stake claims to water and property based on these official topographical and quadrangle maps and reflected boundaries. Rights reserved under federal law and overlaying landowner groundwater rights thus apply to this case.
An examination of the historical record indicates that Nestlé had and BlueTriton has no rights of water withdrawal for surface or groundwater in the San Bernardino National Forest. While there is indeed a corporation chain of title for Nestlé/BlueTriton and their predecessors-in-interest, there is no documentary proof of chain of title for the “real property” water rights filed at the San Bernardino County Recorder’s Office.
There is a lack of clarity as to which 1909 Arrowhead Water bottling company Nestlé/BlueTriton claimed and is claiming as a predecessor-in-interest, between the Los Angeles-based Arrowhead Spring Water Company and the Arrowhead Hot Springs Company or Arrowhead Springs Company or Arrowhead Cold Springs Company.
Nestlé’s corporate chain of title is essential for its successor-in-interest, BlueTriton.
Over the last generation, there have been billions of gallons of water withdrawn from public land in the San Bernardino Mountains within the National Forest which has negatively impacted the endangered and threatened species habitat, the forest ecosystem and deprived the valleys below with groundwater recharge. Dried creek beds and diminished damp headwater springs offer visual evidence, and the ecological travail to the National Forest has been extensively documented in reports by the Forest Service.
There is evidence to suggest that Nestlé had come to recognize some time ago the dubious nature of its water rights claim in Strawberry Canyon, where the spring complex it used in its Arrowhead Pure Spring Water bottling operation was located, and that the water rights it actually owned pertained to water at the 2,000 level near the grounds of the Arrowhead Springs Hotel, which is reportedly tainted with radiation as a consequence of the uranium in the bedrock there. Nestlé Waters of North America was beset with other challenges, legal and otherwise, relating to its water holdings throughout the United States, including those in California, Colorado and Maine. Last year, Nestlé made known its North American water holdings were up for sale.
Late last month, Nestlé shed its Nestlé Waters North America division, selling that portion of its operations pertaining to bottling drinking water in the United States and Canada to One Rock Capital Partners, LLC, in partnership with Metropoulos & Company in what was represented as a $4.3 billion transaction.
One Rock and Metropoulos obtained from Nestlé Waters North America its American/Canadian water portfolio including everything but the North American marketing rights to Perrier. Now in the possession of Poland Spring® Brand 100% Natural Spring Water, Deer Park® Brand 100% Natural Spring Water, Ozarka® Brand 100% Natural Spring Water, Ice Mountain® Brand 100% Natural Spring Water, Zephyrhills® Brand 100% Natural Spring Water, Arrowhead® Brand Mountain Spring Water, Pure Life® and Splash, One Rock and Metropoulos have consolidated those holding under the name BlueTriton Brands.
The Sentinel’s effort this afternoon to reach C. Dean Metropoulos, the CEO of Metropoulos & Company, at his headquarters in the Playboy Mansion, was unsuccessful. Given the time differential between the West Coast and the East Coast, the Sentinel’s effort this afternoon to reach Metropoulos & Company spokeswoman Hannah Arnold, was made too late to reach her at her Washington, D.C.

In an effort widely viewed as making good on a political chit he issued over a decade ago, Assemblyman Chad Mayes has authored legislation aimed at preventing Measure K, the county government reform initiative approved by more than two thirds of San Bernardino County’s voters in November 2020, from going into effect.
In one fell swoop, Mayes with Assembly Bill 428 is aiming at preventing both prongs of Measure K – the imposition of a one term limit on San Bernardino County supervisors and putting a cap on their pay commensurate with the mean income level of county residents – from being implemented.
Mayes began his political career as a fiscal conservative and anti-big government advocate at the age of 25 when he was elected town councilman in Yucca Valley in 2002. He remained on the council until 2011, twice serving terms as appointed mayor during that time. In 2010, he was given a major boost in his political/governmental career, when Janice Rutherford, newly elected as San Bernardino County Second District supervisor, hired him to serve as her chief of staff. Mayes’s position on the fifth floor of the county administrative building put him at the center of confluence between the county’s most powerful elected officials and staff employees and major financial interests in the county, including deep-pocketed donors to political campaigns. In 2014, Mayes was able to use the contacts he had made and the favors he had done to various entities to gather the wherewithal to seek election to the California Assembly.
Mayes is the son of the Reverend Roger Mayes, the pastor of Grace Community Church and a politician himself as an elected board member of the Hi-Desert Water District. Young Mayes attended and graduated from an evangelical Christian college in Lynchberg, Virginia, Liberty University, where he obtained a bachelor’s degree in government while interning for then-Missouri Senator John Ashcroft.
From the outset of his time in political office, Chad Mayes established his reputation as a social and fiscal conservative devoted to Republican politics and reducing the size and scope of government. Indeed, in 2004, a decade before he made the transition to Sacramento, he voted against a proposed 42-percent pay increase for the Town of Yucca Valley’s elected officials. As both councilman and mayor, Mayes worked assiduously at holding spending in check. In his final year as mayor of Yucca Valley he pushed for a reduction of the town’s spending from what had been proposed by city staff, paring the city’s general fund to $8.7 million, below what had been the spending allotment the previous year, and ensuring the town had $5 million salted away in reserves.
That was then. More recently, after six years in Sacramento, he has abandoned the principle of keeping the size and expense of government in check.
Upon his election to the Assembly, Mayes, who was yet adhering to his conservative roots, made an impressive rise up the Republican Party totem pole. Shortly after his swearing in and being assigned to six committees, he was made vice chairman of the Assembly Human Services Committee. His GOP colleagues bestowed on him the position of Chief Republican Whip less than a month after his arrival at the statehouse.
In his first year in office, he took up two issues of central concern to conservatives and the Republican Party, reducing or streamlining governmental regulation of the private sector and reducing or eliminating double or redundant taxation. He introduced Assembly Bill 1286, which created a subcommittee to reform California’s regulatory environment and practices. He then authored Assembly Bill 1202, aimed at substantially reducing the California State Fire Prevention Fee for residents who were already subject to fire prevention or fire service taxes at the local level.
On September 1, 2015, less than ten months after he was sworn in to the Assembly, Mayes was selected by his colleagues to serve as Assembly Republican Leader, succeeding Assemblywoman Kristin Olsen effective January 4, 2016.
In 2017, disaffection between Mayes and the Republican Party set in when he and six other Assembly Republicans joined with the overwhelming Democratic majority in the state’s lower legislative house to support the perpetuation of a long-established system in the Golden State by which manufacturing companies which generate hydrocarbons or exhaust as a consequence of their industrial activities are required to obtain through previously established “smokestack rights” air pollution credits that can be bought and sold under a regime controlled by the state’s various air quality management districts, a system known as “Cap and Trade.” This program is and was considered to be an abomination by conservative Republicans in California. As a consequence, in August 2017 Mayes was deposed as Republican leader in the Assembly.
In the time since then, Mayes has distanced himself from the conservative Republican principles he formerly championed. On December 6, 2019, Mayes left the Republican Party and re-registered as an independent.
The 42nd Assembly District in which Mayes serves is one in which the Republicans hold a distinct registration advantage over Democrats. Despite that and the consideration that Mayes, running as an independent, was opposed by a Republican, Andrew Kotyuk, Mayes’s name recognition and heftier political war chest allowed him to overcome Kotyuk by a 10,359 votes or 55.6 percent-to-96,172 votes or 44.4 percent margin in the 2020 election.
During a signature gathering drive that began in 2019 and ended in 2020, the Red Brennan Group, an affiliation of activists devoted to government accountability, succeeded in gathering 75,132 signatures of county voters to put a county government reform initiative on the November 2020 ballot in San Bernardino County. Ultimately dubbed Measure K by the Registrar of Voters Office, it called for setting the total compensation for an elected supervisor in San Bernardino County at $60,000 per year – including both salary and benefits – and imposed a single four-year term on supervisors. The board of supervisors rushed to place its own initiative on the ballot, which was given the place before Measure K on the voting guide and the ballot as Measure J. Measure J essentially left the supervisors’ total compensation at around $260,000-to-$280,000 annually by giving each of them a salary equal to 90 percent of that provided to a Superior Court judge and a benefit package equal to that provided to the county government’s department heads. It further left intact the current term limit restriction of three four-year terms for the supervisors. Going head-to-head with Measure J as a competing government reform initiative in November, Measure K found far greater support by the county’s electorate. While Measure J garnered passage, with 378,964 votes or 50.72 percent of the 747,188 votes cast supporting it and 368,224 or 49.28 percent opposed, it was soundly outdistanced by Measure K, which 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.
Because they dealt with the same issues of salary and term limits, under California law Measure K was to go into effect rather than Measure J because it was passed by more votes.
In short order, the board of supervisors sued the supervisors’ own employee, San Bernardino County Clerk of the Board Lynna Monell, to prevent her from implementing Measure K. The legal action, a petition for a writ of mandate, alleges 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 maintains Measure K violates “the single subject rule” pertaining to voter initiatives and that “Measure K must not be implemented because it does not embrace a single subject.”
The suit put the enforcement of Measure K on hold while the matter is adjudicated in the court.
It has been pointed out that the grounds cited in the supervisors’ lawsuit for invalidating Measure K would equally apply to Measure J, and there is some concern among the supervisors and their supporters that the lawsuit will fail and eventually Measure K and its salary and term limitations will go into effect.
Accordingly, Supervisor Janice Rutherford, who played a role in advancing Mayes’ political career by hiring him as her chief of staff in 2010, importuned him to author legislation that will keep Measure K from achieving the ends the Red Brennan Group designed it for.
Mayes indulged Rutherford by drafting Assembly Bill 428 which, with regard to the number of terms a supervisor may serve, states, “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the board of supervisors of any general law or charter county may adopt or the residents of the county may propose, by initiative, a proposal to limit to no fewer than two terms or repeal a limit on the number of terms a member of the board of supervisors may serve on the board of supervisors.”
With regard to the pay county supervisors are to receive, Assembly Bill 428 explicitly calls for preventing the citizenry at large from setting the pay grade for members of a board of supervisors, stating, “The board of supervisors shall prescribe the compensation of all county officers, including the board of supervisors, and shall provide for the number, compensation, tenure, appointment and conditions of employment of county employees.”
On April 7, Scott Kaufman, the legislative director for the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, sent a letter to Mayes. The letter reads, “This is to inform you that the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association must oppose AB 428. AB 428 seeks to undo the overwhelming approval of Measure K in San Bernardino County that amended the county charter to impose a term limit of one term and reduced the total compensation for each member of the board of supervisors to $5,000 per month.”
Kaufman continued, “Now, other counties are concerned about the potential for similar measures. If Measure K is a problem, it is no worse than stripping voters of the ability to designate their preferred length of terms and set pay of the county supervisors because we dislike the outcome of an election.”
Kaufman thereafter concluded his letter with a reference to Proposition 218, passed by the state’s voters in 1992, and which requires that any general tax the government is going to impose on its citizens must be passed by a majority vote of those upon whom the tax is to be levied and that any “special tax” to be used for a specified purpose by local or state government must be passed by a vote of two-thirds of those upon whom the tax is to be levied. “Elected officials frequently complain when seeking to undermine Prop. 218 that getting two-thirds of voters to agree is almost an impossible feat,” Kaufman noted. “Yet Measure K was approved by a two-thirds majority (66.84%) of voters and AB 428 still seeks to undo it. The people have spoken.”
Mayes did not respond to inquiries by the Sentinel.
-Mark Gutglueck

In a move hailed by both environmentalists and futurists and conversely decried by free marketeers, the City of Rancho Cucamonga this week put a 45-day moratorium on the approval of new or the revamping of old service stations within its city limits.
The vote by the council puts on hold or will perhaps impede permanently the construction of two pending new gas stations and the revival of two currently shuttered filling stations.
The council action sets the stage for the eventual adaptation of standards intended toward facilitating the so-called net zero carbon target, which originally six years ago was to entail a stabilization in the use of fossil fuels throughout the entirety of California at 2015 levels by the end of this year going forward even in the face of further state population growth and development. Zero carbon target advocates have more recently reset the fossil fuel use stabilization goal at the year 2030.
On March 17, 2021, the city council asked city staff to gather information pertaining to and conduct some analysis of gas stations in the city of Rancho Cucamonga in order to give that decision-making panel some direction with regard to the regulation of gas stations and their future development as to be overseen by the city and its planning division.
On Wednesday afternoon, April 21, 2021 the council considered and later that evening signed off on a set of findings that grew out of the municipal planning division’s inquiry along the lines the council suggested on March 17. At a specially-called afternoon session devoted to the consideration of the city’s future policy with regard to filling stations that was intended to augment the city council’s regularly scheduled meeting that night, Planning Director Anne Browning McIntosh said, “We have had a recent activity in our planning department and building and safety [division] around service stations that we haven’t seen for other commercial uses.”
After having last approved a new gas station nine years ago, the city is currently considering four applications to build new or revive shuttered existing gas stations.
McIntosh said, “It is a good time to look at this issue and determine whether or not we are adequately prepared to review additional applications, whether or not our codes are adequate to regulate these. There are concerns around land use impacts related to service stations.” She said there were questions about the relative financial benefits of gas stations to the city and how they compare with other potential land uses, as well as what the optimum number of gas stations in the city would or should be.
McIntosh noted that in common parlance there are strict differences in the definitions of gas stations and service stations, with service stations defined as ones providing mechanic services such as radiator work, smog checks and tire replacement, but that the city code uses the term service station as a catch-all that blurs the distinction between gas stations and service stations even if a gas station “does not have those additional vehicle services.”
The point was made that service stations that included a full range of mechanical services and which proliferated in the past are declining, and that gas stations now more commonly entail gas pumps and a convenience store.
McIntosh noted that Rancho Cucamonga, with its 32 active stations and two inactive ones had a larger number of service stations than its surrounding cities, as there are 21 in Fontana, 20 in Ontario and 17 in Upland, though McIntosh said Upland had more stations per square mile than does Rancho Cucamonga.
The findings contained in the staff report presented to and ultimately adopted by the city council suggested that gas stations represent in much of their aspect negative environmental consequences. A glut of gas stations, the report propounded, could intensify the disadvantage inherent in such land uses because ruinous competition between them could lead to some of the stations closing and being neglected, thus resulting in harm to the environment.
“The Environmental Protection Agency has classified service stations and fuel storage locations as uses that may result in a brownfield site,” according to the statement of findings. “Brownfield sites are properties, the expansion, redevelopment, or reuse of which may be complicated by the presence or potential presence of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant. Common contaminants found at service station sites include gasoline, diesel, and petroleum oil, volatile organic compounds and solvents, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and lead. Exposure to the types of contaminants present, or potentially present, at service stations threatens the public health, safety or welfare of neighboring communities.”
The statement of findings continues, “There are thirty-two service stations currently in operation in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. There are an additional two more service stations that are currently in plan check review for building permits or under construction. Many of the existing service stations are located near sensitive receptors. The close proximity of service stations to these areas increases the risk of contaminant exposure to vulnerable populations. This problem is exacerbated in situations where the service station may become a brownfield site. A disproportionate amount of the city’s existing service stations are concentrated in the southwest and central areas of the city. Thirteen service stations are located in District 2 [on the city’s south and southwest side] and eleven are located in District 3 [in the city’s central core]. In contrast, districts 1 [in the northwest corner of the city] and 4 [on the northeast and east portion of the city] have only five service stations each. The proliferation of service stations in districts 2 and 3 inequitably increases health risks for the residents of these districts due to the potential contaminants present at service stations. As a matter of environmental justice, the city council must carefully consider how such uses are zoned under the city’s general plan and development code in order to avoid an undue concentration of service stations in any one part of the city.”
The findings touched on the degree to which gas stations appear to be a magnet for crime.
“Based on data provided by the sheriff’s department, the amount of criminal activity that occurs specifically at service stations necessitates that police services be routinely deployed to service stations,” the statement of findings puts forth. “Over the past five years, the number of calls for service at service stations has steadily increased. In 2020, a total of 1,059 calls for service were made at service stations in the city, resulting in approximately 2,455 hours of police time spent policing and protecting service stations. The development of additional service stations within the city would result in additional strains on police services to counter the potential for increased criminal activity.”
The San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department provides contractual law enforcement services to the city and serves as the Rancho Cucamonga Police Department.
During Wednesday afternoon’s meeting, both McIntosh and City Manager John Gillison observed that gas stations in the city are so plentiful that everywhere within the city except at its extreme north end, residents are no more than five minutes driving time from a filling station.
According to the statement of findings, “Applications for additional service stations continue to be submitted to the city despite the already high concentration of service stations in the city and declining demand. The declining demand for gasoline is partly demonstrated by the decline in annual service station revenues in the city. According to revenue estimates reported to the city by existing service stations, such revenues have declined by over half a million dollars from 2019 to 2020, echoing global trends, which have seen the decline in service stations over the past ten years due to a variety of factors, including the proliferation of electric vehicles, shared mobility solutions, and alternative fuel options. Furthermore, vehicle technology is rapidly evolving such that reliance on gas is steadily declining. According to a report from the Boston Consulting Group, it is estimated that by 2030, more than one third of all new vehicles will be fully or partially electric. Charging for electric vehicles can take place in a variety of locations such as at home, work and in parking lots. Ride-sharing solutions further reduce demand for gasoline as car ownership becomes more obsolete.”
Moreover, according to the statement of findings, “The declining demand for gasoline may increase competition amongst the existing service stations in the city such that closures may occur over time. Due to their propensity to become brownfield sites, service stations require significant investment to remediate any potential ground contamination prior to redevelopment. Closed sites may be abandoned and left unused for years and removal of contaminants may present health risks for neighboring communities and sensitive receptors. Additional closures could result in increased blight and dangerous conditions throughout the city, thereby threatening public health, safety and welfare. The city council wishes to assess the appropriate concentration and locations of service stations given declining demand.”
Dan Titus, a resident of the Alta Loma district of Rancho Cucamonga, in comments provided in writing to the city council, disputed multiple elements of the findings.
“Staff claims that ‘The analysis of issues related to service stations makes clear that service stations pose a threat to public health, safety, and welfare and the city must evaluate new regulations to address that threat,’” Titus wrote. “Citing that service stations are a ‘threat’ is a bold statement, especially in the context of public health, safety and welfare. Staff cites police service calls as a primary criteria in determination that service stations are a ‘threat.’ However, no other statistics were offered, for a baseline comparison of other business classifications, liquor stores, salons, etc. Therefore, this data does not support staff’s argument in a meaningful way.”
Titus took issue with city staff’s contention that the definition of service stations does not consider forms of fuel, and is outdated, and that the definition of the use should be refined to contemplate how natural gas and electric vehicle fueling stations are treated under the city’s zoning regulations. Calling this “staff speculation,” Titus said, “There is no way of knowing what will define a ‘service station’ in the future. Types of products offered will be predicated by market demand. It is the responsibility of providers of service stations to satisfy the wants of its customers. Those wants will be predicated on the types of vehicles people choose to drive, whether they are gasoline, natural gas, propane, or electric.”
With regard to the justification of imposing the moratorium on the basis that it would, in the finding’s words, “allow staff to evaluate the typical operations of a service station in greater detail, the technical standards that should apply to them, and, incorporate necessary requirements and regulations that will minimize their operational and site development impacts,” Titus countered that “It is pretentious for staff to promote socially-controlled centralized planning by dictating ‘technical standards.’ It is impossible for staff to evaluate ‘typical operations of a service station.’ Operations are predicated on the development, manufacture and distribution of products and services. In a capitalist economy, this involves risk. Service stations must adapt to market demand, as previously noted. Those that do will stay in business; those that don’t will go out of business.”
City staff’s assertion that tax revenue from the city’s service stations will “decline over time in part due to the availability and preference of alternative energy sources for powering an automobile,” Titus said, “is speculation. No scientific proof for this claim was presented.”
Likewise, he dismissed as “conjecture” staff’s contention that “electric cars powered by batteries are becoming more commonplace [and] It is estimated that by 2030, more than a one third of all new vehicles sold will be fully or partially electric powered.” He disputed the assertion in the statement of findings that “As battery charging can occur at home, work, or in parking lots, the need for service stations is likely to decline in a corresponding manner.” This, Titus said, “is based on assumptions; therefore, the likelihood of service stations declining in the future is speculation.”
Titus dismissed as a “false statement” staff’s claim, layered into the statement of findings ratified by the city council, that “The declining demand for gasoline due to changes in technology and consumer preferences may increase competition among the existing service stations in the city such that closures may occur over time.” Rather, he said, “Due to changes in technology, existing service stations will adapt to consumer wants and adapt their business models accordingly in order to stay in business and make a profit.”
In the same way, he maintained, the council’s finding that “as hydrogen, liquid petroleum service, compressed natural gas service, and biofuels become more readily adopted as power sources for automobiles, conventional service stations could potentially become obsolete or unable to provide the demand for these alternative fuels,” is based on assumption and unsupported by any tangible evidence.
Titus further disputed that ride sharing services and mobility alternatives will become more popular in the future to the point that reduced personal automobile usage will result and reduce demand for service stations of any kind, and that the use of alternative fuels and ride sharing will result in service stations becoming fiscal “underperformers.”
Titus told the city council he was “opposed to the moratorium because staff has proposed central economic planning in regards to service stations in the city. At its core, this ordinance is anti-free market. The staff report tries to disparage honest business practices through speculation statements.”
During Wednesday afternoon’s session, Councilwoman Kristine Scott said, “I’m glad we’re taking a look [at the moratorium concept]. I’m not a fan of moratoriums. I don’t like moratoriums, but in this case I feel that hitting the pause button… is appropriate for this. Let’s look at the data, look at what we’re doing and [find out if] these are the best options, the best uses for this land. I also understand that we do have some applications in and I understand people put in time and energy so far into those applications, so I would also recommend we do a moratorium exempting those.”
Councilman Ryan Hutchison, while saying that the city should consider putting “more detailed standards and operational requirements in the city’s development code [including] regulating hours of operation, lighting, security, safety, proximity to neighborhoods, residents, and vehicles queuing on the streets,” indicated such examinations should be made for all types of commercial development and should not be confined simply to gas stations. He said a consideration of new development standards would be “a great thing for every single development. I want to be clear: I don’t think that I would ever support currently a long-term ban on the development of gas stations in the city. I think that’s something the market will bring about as a necessity rather than through government. I also think people that made that significant investment [into planning and seeking permitting for a gas station should] be able to continue and that we’re not hitting the pause button for them who are already working on an application.”
Mayor L. Dennis Michael expressed the view that the government should exercise its oversight in shaping what sort of development is to come into the city. He seemed to suggest that the judgment of municipal officials should have at least equal weight as that of the private sector in determining what commercial and other uses, and the types of those uses, are best for the community and its residents.
“I guess I’ve got a concern,” Michael said. “Some of those concerns rest with the competition oversaturation [and] what happens to the older, more well-established stations that don’t have the kind of good-looking, nice amenities available to residents, and we start ending up seeing stations, like the two that are vacant, go out of business. Now we have a brownfield problem when we have a developer come in who wants to do something really cool, but he’s got a huge expense in remediation on the site. I want to thank the staff for your recognition that, hey, this seems like we’re getting a real spike in these kind of facilities – service stations, gas stations, however you want to call them, and convenience stores – and at least at this point in one specific area of the city.” Michael indicated he was concerned that the proliferation of gas stations with convenient store components, with their propensity to locate at a corner of major intersections, would preclude the development of a substantial shopping center containing a grocery store in the southwest quadrant of the city, which he said was devoid of such uses.
“I would support taking a pause to look at this a little more deeply,” he said. “I would like to find out, and maybe staff could do an analysis on, what would happen if a number – three or four – gas stations came in one centralized area of the community, what that would do to the existing market of the other stations that are currently probably struggling themselves. I just think we need to be careful. We have only so much vacant land left in this city, and we certainly need to look for the highest and best use, and be patient… and look towards what opportunities, what potential risk we are running into when we can never get back what we gave up.”
The mayor said he would support up to a two-year moratorium on any new applications for gas stations.
The council deferred voting on the moratorium until the regular meeting held that evening, at which time its members voted unanimously to put it into place.
Titus lamented that “In a convoluted argument, staff conflates service stations as becoming fiscal ‘underperformers’ in regards to the contribution they make to city tax revenues. They speculate about their profitability potential based on probabilities of future products and services they might offer.”
-Mark Gutglueck

Next week, the Redlands Planning Commission will consider Village Partners Ventures, LLC’s proposal to transform the largely vacant 11.15-acre Redlands Mall, which formerly hosted the Harris’ department store, from what was once an intensified and flourishing commercial center into a mixed use development with a dense residential component.
Village Partners’ effort hinges on three premises, with the first and most dynamic being that city officials will welcome the rejuvenation of the property after it has remained unproductive for more than a decade, and that those officials will accordingly facilitate the application for the project’s approval. The second premise is that it can be considered to be in conformance with the Transit Villages Specific Plan, a subcomponent of the Redlands General Plan adopted in 2017 that envisions mixed uses including relatively high density residential units in the districts around the train stations to be built in Redlands as part of the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority’s “Arrow” light rail passenger line tentatively slated to begin operating in 2022. Those train stations are to be located proximate to the New York Street/Redlands Boulevard intersection, the Downtown Redlands station at the historic Santa Fe Depot at the convergence of Orange Street and Shoppers Lane and the rail line terminus at University Station at University Street and Park Place. The third premise is that the project will be deemed exempt from Measure U, which was passed by Redlands’ voters in 1997 and imposed strict height and density restrictions on development that can only be suspended with a four-fifths vote of the city council.
Noteworthy characteristics of the project are that it will entail a five-story structure and 722 residential units.
On the Redlands Planning Commission agenda for its meeting on Tuesday, April 27 is the consideration of the project, described as “a transit-oriented mixed use project built in phases.” Approval of the item would clear the way, according to the staff report accompanying the agenda, for Village Partners Ventures, LLC to “demolish existing on-site buildings and improvements; construct multiple mixed-use buildings with up to 3-, 4-, and 5-stories; construct up to 722 multifamily dwelling units to include live/work, studio, one-bedroom, two-bedroom, and three-bedroom units ranging between 475 and 1,500 square-feet each; construct an approximately 10,000 square-foot recreational amenity multi-story building including an exterior pool and resident areas; construct up to 73,000 square-feet of commercial floor area on ground floors to include retail and restaurant uses, as well as a rooftop restaurant; construct up to 12,000 square-feet of office space on upper floors; [complete a] pedestrian plaza totaling approximately 16,500 square-feet; construct a six-level parking structure with 780 spaces and two single-level subterranean parking structures each with approximately 240 spaces; construct a 14,600 square-foot single tenant retail building for a pharmacy on the south side of Citrus Avenue at Eureka Street; construct public and private open space areas to include landscaping, shade trees, street trees, and pedestrian improvements; and construct related site improvements to include sidewalks, driveways, landscape, lighting, flood prevention, and public and private utility connections.”
The pharmacy referenced pertains to the CVS drug store, one of the last remaining commercial operations yet open on the mall site. It will be relocated across Citrus Avenue onto 1.1 acres located at the southeast corner of Citrus Avenue and Eureka Street, which currently exists as a parking lot.
West State Street, which currently terminates at Orange Street, is to be extended through the project.
The project is intended to be transit-oriented in keeping with the Transit Villages concept, such that the residents in the project’s apartments will be able to leave their vehicles parked in the project’s parking structures and easily walk to the downtown train platform located at most no more than the distance of three football fields – 1,200 feet – to the north. Those residents will also be able to “make multiple stops at a coffee shop, restaurant, bank, medical office, neighborhood grocery, pharmacy, post office, or cleaners all within a half-mile radius, in about one hour or less, and without needing a motor vehicle,” according to the staff report prepared for the planning commission.
The staff report indicates that elements of Measure U, a growth limitation measure passed into law by the city’s voters more than two decades ago, can be bypassed. The first section of the staff report addresses the importance of evading the restrictions of Measure U if the project is to proceed.
The report notes that the developer is attempting to maneuver around the city’s restrictions banning projects involving structures higher than two stories or more than 18 units per acre. “The applicant is requesting a city council determination that the proposed project is exempt from Measure ‘U’ (which included provisions specifically exempting certain types of development),” the report states. “Measure ‘U’ Section 2, Part B (Exemptions), is listed below. The applicant is requesting exemption based on category D, “Development directly related to proposed Metrolink stations in the City of Redlands….”
The report then quotes the language in Measure U relating to such exemptions. That language reads, “2. Special Categories of Development. The provisions of this initiative measure shall not apply to the following:
A. New individual infill construction of single family homes on existing lots of record bounded by developed property as of March 1, 1997;
B. Rehabilitation, remodeling or additions to existing single family residential structures;
C. Reconstruction or replacement of any uses to the same density, intensity and classification of use as existed on the effective date, including legal non-conforming uses;
D. Development directly related to proposed Metrolink stations in the City of Redlands, including one at the University of Redlands;
E. New development projects subject to the Downtown Specific Plan 45, upon a four-fifths (4/5ths) vote of the total authorized membership of the city council; and
F. Special, temporary or occasional uses of public streets including parades, local sporting and cultural events, graduation ceremonies, approved and other occasional public gatherings.”
It is Village Partners Ventures, LLC’s contention that the project it is proposing qualifies for the exemptions under category D and possibly E. The Downtown Specific Plan 45 has in some measure been superseded by the Transit Villages Specific Plan.
According to the staff report, “The Mall site (11.15 acres) is approximately 650 feet to the south of the Santa Fe Depot train station at its closest point (with three routes of pedestrian access available along Third Street, Orange Street, and Eureka Street), and approximately 1,200 feet to the south of the Santa Fe Depot train station at its farthest point. The property at the southeast corner of Citrus Avenue and Eureka Street is approximately 1,300 feet to the south of the Santa Fe Depot train station at its farthest point, which is no more than 1/4-mile from the Metrolink and Arrow train platforms.”
It is unknown at this time whether there will be active resistance to granting the exemptions by a heavy contingent of Redlands residents and activists who consider themselves watchdogs with regard to any efforts to compromise the principles of Measure U.
Last year, Redlands residents were called upon to consider Measure G, which was placed by the city council on the March 3, 2020 California Primary ballot. Measure G sought to undo all of the provisions of Measure R, Measure N and Measure U in the city’s 782-acre central corridor and make further general sallies against Measures R, N, and U throughout the city. Specifically, Measure G called for eliminating the requirement that a four-fifths vote of the city council is needed to approve residential densities exceeding 18 dwelling units per acre, eliminate the current requirement that a four-fifths vote of the city council is needed to approve residential buildings exceeding two stories or 35 feet in height, eliminate the need for developers to ensure that the level of traffic flow that exists at the intersections proximate to their projects prior to the construction of their projects be maintained after the projects are completed, eliminate the requirement that the voters of the city rather than the city council be solely authorized to establish any new land use designations in the city, eliminate the requirement that the proponents of certain new development projects prepare a socioeconomic‐cost/benefit study before approval of those projects, eliminate the requirement that certain residential subdivision projects be subject to competitive review for issuance of building permits, and eliminate the requirement that the developers of new projects pay 100 percent of the development impact fees that are imposed on those projects. Measure G also called for rescinding the earlier voter‐approved measures R, N and U, which prohibit more than 400 residential dwelling units being constructed within the city in any year.
Measure G was soundly defeated, gathering 7,798 votes of support, or 35.12 percent of the ballots cast, while being met by 14,407 votes in opposition, equal to 64.88 percent rejection.
-Mark Gutglueck