David Eshleman, the hard-driving grandson of German immigrants to Fontana who grew up in the steel town and came to embody its blue collar spirit as much as anyone and then served two terms as its top political leader, has passed into eternity.
The palette from which Eshleman’s 74 years of life was painted was a variegated one, and while each of the multiple labels he wore are apt definitions – entrepreneur, builder, landowner, developer, grappler, meatmarketer, father, husband, race car driver, race team owner, activist and politician – no single description suffices in capturing his essence.
A Fontana native, Eshleman was born on February 20, 1947, one of seven of Albert “Whitey” Eshleman and Dorothy Eshleman’s children. Eshleman’s maternal grandparents were Ross and Violet Gesler, who after immigrating to America had settled in Fontana. They were horticulturalists and in their greenhouses on Arrow Highway they crossbred flowers, the most notable creation of which was the Ross Gesler orchid.
Eshleman grew up on the family ranch property in South Fontana with brothers Albert, Jim, Bill and Richard and sisters Sally and Donna.
What started as one of Whitey Eshleman’s secondary or even tertiary pursuits was the provision of Thanksgiving and Christmas turkeys to the local populace, and it was on this turkey farm that young David Eshleman was instilled with much of his work ethic and an understanding of the rudiments of a consolidated business operation.
At Fontana High School, Eshleman was a member of the wrestling team, competing within the 115, 123 and 130 pound weight classes.
Fontana, the home of the Kaiser Steel Mill, was also the birthplace of the Hells Angels, and in the early to mid-1960s, Fontana was host to a drag racing strip, referred to variously as Mickey Thompson’s Fontana International Dragway or as Fontana Drag City. The Fontana Drag Strip was a venue in the National Hot Road Association circuit. In addition, there were several remote and more obscure streets in Fontana that served as a venue of unlicensed and illicit street racing. While Eshleman did not participate in those races, he was an occasional spectator.
Upon graduating from high school, Eshleman worked a series of jobs for about a year, and thereafter enrolled at Chaffey College, pursuing his diploma in general education. Eshleman wrestled on the Chaffey College Team, in the 138 pound weight class.
While at Chaffey’s Alta Loma campus, he took a few courses in automotive technology.
One of the automotive technology instructors at Chaffey was Sam Contino. Contino and the students in his orbit at that point were picking up enthusiasm for the advent of the California Motor Speedway in Ontario, which shortly after its completion in 1969 would host the inaugural California 500. Contino successfully prevailed upon the Chaffey College administration to go along with the creation of a racecar technology program within the automotive technology department. Eshleman was among those students caught up in the frenzy. He began racing in 1968.
A major project undertaken by the Racecar Technology Program at Chaffey College was the modification of a factory Ford Mustang, which was destined for a Sports Car Club of America competition at Ontario Motor Speedway in 1971. The Ford Motor Company was so impressed with what the Chaffey team had accomplished with the Mustang that it sponsored the team’s further efforts. While driving the Mustang, Eshleman set the world speed record for a modified street car, reaching 185 miles per hour.
On a relatively consistent basis, over the next 13 years, Eshleman raced at Riverside Speedway and other venues, chalking up a sting of regional championships in both the sports car and Formula A classes.
Involved in the racing world, Eshleman found employment with Hooker Headers, an Ontario-based company that specialized in the production of air-pushing exhaust systems intended for high performance vehicles that were designed to eliminate backpressure and increase horsepower.
While Dave Eshleman was at Chaffey College, embarking on his own professional career and starting a family, at the Eshleman Ranch, Whitey Eshleman’s turkey farm grew in popularity year after year, necessitating that he obtain a provisional slaughtering and dressing license to package turkeys, which were then sold out the door to local buyers and moved to market. In 1973, Whitey was electrocuted in a mishap at the packing house. His widow, Dorothy, pressed on. Operations at the ranch were overseen by Dave. A few years later, Eshleman bought the ranch from his mother, who moved to Oak Hills.
In 1983, the California Department of Food & Agriculture and the San Bernardino County Department of Health gave Eshleman a permit and license to operate the slaughterhouse on a permanent basis. Thereafter, his operation became a primary outlet for beef brought in from the Chino Agricultural Preserve.
With his center of operations now at the ranch, which technically lay just south of the Fontana City Limits in the unincorporated county area that was considered to be part of Fontana’s sphere of influence north of the Riverside County boundary, Eshleman began buying property nearby, picking up a parcel here and a parcel there, becoming one of the primary landowners in the unincorporated county area as well as south Fontana.
By 1985, both the Ontario Motor Speedway and the Riverside Speedway had been shuttered. With legal venues for racing locally limited, Eshleman, at the age of 38, was unwilling to participate in illegal street races at his age. Focused more on raising his family and his business interests, Eshleman pretty much stopped racing at that point.
In the 1980s, the City of Fontana was on the ropes structurally and financially. The Kaiser Steel Mill, which had been the major financial engine of the city for some time but which had been an ecological bane because of the pollutants that belched from its smokestacks and coke ovens, closed in 1983. Jack Ratelle, who had begun as Fontana city manager in 1973, aided and abetted by several self-serving and corrupt members of the city council over the years, had engaged in a series of depredations by which developmental interests had been given a free rein to build both residential and commercial and sometimes industrial subdivisions without providing corresponding infrastructure improvements. In return for being allowed to skip out on providing that infrastructure to accommodate that building, the developers plied Ratelle with bribes and kickbacks. Sales tax and property tax springbacks to developers and the political cronies of the city council and the mayor had nearly bankrupted the city treasury, and the city was bound by commitments that hamstrung the city financially, indeed to the point of City Hall being crippled altogether. In 1987, the city council, members of which were yet beholden to Ratelle, were nevertheless forced by the events overtaking the city to fire the incorrigibly corrupt city manager, at which point the reformist team of John O’Sullivan. Ratelle’s replacement as city manager, and Finance Manager Jim Grissom were brought in to stabilize the situation, stem the giveaways and stanch the hemorrhaging of red ink into the city’s books.
Then-Mayor Nat Simon, whose first run on the Fontana City Council had ended in scandal in 1968 but who made a political comeback by defeating Frank Horzen in the 1982 Fontana mayoral election, had come to an accommodation with Ratelle during his latter two terms as mayor in the 1980s. In his final two years in office, Simon looked on in dismay as O’Sullivan and Grissom were dismantling the graft-encrusted arrangements that had enabled Simon’s cronies and the business interests who had been paying off Ratelle for years in their exploitation of the city.
Though many assumed, because of his entrepreneurial orientation, that Eshleman was a Republican, he was in fact a Democrat, and a serious Democrat at that. In 1989, while in contact with the Democratic Party, Eshleman began making preparations to run for the Fontana City Council the following year. In close consultation with Simon, a Democrat, and aided by Democratic political consultants Richard Rodriquez and Bill Greenberg, Eshleman emerged victorious in the November 1990 election. In the same election, however, Simon was ousted by Bill Kragness, an incumbent member of the city council.
At that stage, Fontana was yet seeking to come to terms with the legacy of Ratelle’s 14 years as city manager. One of those burdens was the way in which Ratelle had cleared the way for the Ten Ninety Corporation to proceed with its development of the 9,100-unit Southridge Project in the early 1980s without that company having to pay for the infrastructure at that massive subdivision. Ratelle had set up for himself a credit line at the MGM Hotel in Las Vegas. The Ten Ninety Corporation then endowed that credit line with periodic payments. Ratelle made weekly or bimonthly trips to Las Vegas, checking into the MGM Grand, where he would collect the most recent installment of money put into his credit line, then make himself visible in MGM Casino, generally at the roulette and dice tables. Back in Fontana on weekdays, he would regale those throughout City Hall with tales of how he had won so much money or had lost so much money over the weekend. In tandem with Neil Stone, then the city’s redevelopment agency director, Ratelle arranged for the redevelopment agency to underwrite the full cost of infrastructure at the Southridge project, which ran to a $120 million price tag in 1982 dollars. This entailed the redevelopment agency securing $55 million in loans from the Glaziers Union and $65 million in bond financing in the form of “certificates of participation” not approved in a vote of Fontana citizens but rather through a vote of the city council. Prior to that vote, Ratelle, either by having the city hire the inveterately unemployed son-in-law of one councilman or ensuring that the welding business owned by another councilman was given plenty of work or by spreading around some of the money he brought back from Las Vegas to Mayor Simon or another councilmember, Ratelle ensured that the council voted to approve having the redevelopment agency pay for the streets, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, sewers, strormdrains, culverts, streetlights and other improvements needed for the Southridge project to be built. To service this indebtedness to the Glaziers’ Union and the holders of the certificates of participation, the city of Fontana was committed for 30 years – until 2013 – to make $3.12 million in bond payments every quarter, that is $1.04 million per month or $12.48 million per year. This deal and others like it made O’Sullivan’s task extremely difficult, and in three years on the job he encountered a depth of challenges most city managers do not see in a decade. By the time Eshleman was sworn in, O’Sullivan was a shambles of a man.
During his first term in elected office, Eshleman found himself isolated on the city council, as Kragness led the panel, and another incumbent, Gary Boyles, was part of the bulwark that had been part of the move to shed Ratelle. This had put Boyles in direct conflict with Simon, and Boyles’ enmity toward Simon carried over toward Eshleman, who was being advised by Simon throughout much of his first term on the council. Eshleman, a newcomer to political office, was unaware of the degree to which Ratelle had looted the city coffers during his tenure as city manager, and he did not appreciate the degree to which Kragness and Boyles at that point had come to recognize that Ratelle had duped them while they were relying on his guidance of the city. Nor was Eshleman aware of Simon’s connivance with Ratelle during the first five years of Simon’s last eight years as mayor. This put Eshleman at severe odds with his council colleagues at that time, and his difficulty in this regard deepened when John Roberts, who worked with Boyles as a county firefighter in Fontana, was elected to the city council 1992.
An important development during Eshleman’s first term in elected office was the hiring of Greg Devereaux as redevelopment agency and housing director in 1991.
Ultimately, O’Sullivan was forced out by the city council majority, including Eshleman, which pleased Simon. O’Sullivan was succeeded by Russ Carlsen, who endeavored to come to terms with the city’s intractable financial issues, but was as overwhelmed by them as was his predecessor. Carlsen lasted for only a brief span. In turn, he was replaced by Jay Corey, who likewise had a short tenure in the city manager’s post. Thereafter, in 1993, the council elevated Devereaux to the city manager’s post.
In 1994, Eshleman successfully vied for mayor. That same year, Devereaux’s utter brilliance in managing a large organization was in evidence. By a stroke of timing, luck and his initiative and drive which made him Fontana’s mayor at that point in the city’s history, Eshleman was the political beneficiary of Fontana’s promotion of Devereaux, who at that point clued Eshleman into the degree to which Ratelle and Simon had damaged the city. In 1997, the City of Ontario lured Devereaux away from Fontana with an even more lucrative offer for him to be city manager there. Nevertheless, for the first two-and-a-half years of Eshleman’s first term as Fontana mayor, his political leadership of Fontana came to be seen as synonymous with Devereaux’s managerial and administrative leadership of Fontana. Devereaux, and by extension Eshleman, grappled with, and simultaneously exhibited command and confidence in facing, the seeming insurmountable financial problems that had put Fontana at the bottom of a pit. From 1994 until 1997, the Eshleman/Devereaux Team not only succeeded in lifting Fontana out of the abyss, but managed to put the city on firm financial footing that would persist for more than two decades – to the present. With its current 217,237 residents, Fontana is the second largest city in terms of population in San Bernardino County with the third-largest budget of the county’s 24 municipalities and the fifth most dynamic economic engine countywide.
In 1998, Eshleman was handily reelected mayor, garnering 67.2 percent of the vote.
As Fontana’s mayor, Eshleman was Fontana’s representative to the San Bernardino Association of Governments, which served as the county’s transportation agency, and the Southern California Association of Governments, a regional planning authority.
In his mayoral capacity, Eshleman exhibited the same attitude toward action and results as he did in his daily personal and professional life. Whatever one might say about Eshleman, lazy he was not. At the Eshleman Ranch and at the slaughterhouse, he would typically be seen among his employees and crews working on various jobs and projects, and was identifiable as the most energetic among them. Over the years, tractor-excavators and small bulldozers were among the pieces of equipment at the Eshleman ranch. As often as not, Eshleman was at the helm of these. So it was when Eshleman was mayor. He would abide by making a contemplative consideration of an issue, but once the discussion was over, he called for action. He was not indulgent of procrastination.
Well prior to his election to the city council, city officials had been looking at how the former Kaiser Steel Mill property was to be reclaimed and redeveloped. At one point, there was discussion of converting some of the land to a sports stadium where the Raiders NFL Team, which originated in Oakland, later moved to Los Angeles in 1982, moved back to Oakland in 1995 and in 2020 moved to Las Vegas, would relocate. That never materialized. But that discussion enlivened Eshleman, who had by that point drifted back to competitive racing, including Sports Car Club of America events at Toyota Speedway in Irwindale and Orange Show Speedway in San Bernardino. He pivoted from the concept of an athletic stadium in Fontana and alighted, based on his enthusiasm for racing and the loss more than a decade earlier of the Ontario Motor Speedway, to a proposal to create a racing venue at the north end of the steel mill property. He opened up a dialogue with motorsports mogul Roger Penske, and that led to an arrangement with Penske’s company to develop the California Speedway. Known for sponsorship reasons as the Auto Club Speedway, the track was completed in 1997 and exists as the landmark by which Fontana is now best known to the rest of the world.
In 1999, Eshleman created his own racing team, Eshleman Racing, which included his “Spirit of Fontana” car. In 2001, at the age of 54, he competed in the Winston West race. The team attracted a number of up-and-coming drivers, including Ryan Partridge, Ryan Vargas, Charles Price, Linny White, David Gilliand, and his granddaughters McKenzie and Kayla Eschleman.
On September 11, 2001, Eshleman was among a convocation of the nation’s mayors in Washington, D.C. when four planes were commandeered by terrorists carrying out suicide missions. Two of the planes crashed into both of the World Trade Center towers in Manhattan. A third flew into the Pentagon in Washington, D.C. A fourth plane did not make it to its intended target when its passengers stormed the cabin, forcing the plane into a crash into a field near Shanksville, Pennsylvania, one that was fatal to all aboard. The mayoral convention was abruptly interrupted, as all of those in attendance were rushed to a safe place.
In 2002, Fontana Councilman Mark Nuami, funded by a consortium of developers, moved to challenge Eshleman as mayor. Preparatory toward the race, Nuami embarked on a number of attacks against the incumbent mayor. One of those consisted of questioning the 2000 appointment of Eshleman’s wife, Pamela Anderson Eshleman, to the Fontana Planning Commission. In response, she simply resigned from the panel.
Another political sortie Nuami made against the mayor was to question why Eshleman had not sought to annex some 30 acres of property he owned in the unincorporated county area south of the Fontana City Limits that fell within Fontana’s sphere of influence into the city. In response, Eshleman noted that as mayor, his taking any action with regard to his property would constitute a conflict of interest.
Nuami’s strategy of insinuating conflicts of interest against Eshleman were curious, given the consideration that he had a glaring conflict of interest of his own, which consisted of the company Nuami worked for, Iteris, having a multi-million dollar contract with the City of Fontana.
Ultimately in the 2002 Fontana mayoral election, which featured Eshleman, Nuami and a third candidate, Scott Larson, Nuami edged Eshleman 47.4 percent of the vote to Eshleman’s 41.6 percent, with Larson capturing 10.8 percent.
Liberated after 12 years in politics, Eshleman involved himself deeper into racing. In 2003, he ranked high enough to get invited to the inaugural Showdown Series at Irwindale. In 2004, he made his first and last Busch Series start, at the Fontana track, driving for Ware Racing Enterprises. Starting at 41st in the field, he was black flagged early. He made it to 40th by the end of the race.
He continued to race in the K&N Pro Series until his retirement from racing, at the age of 61, in 2008. At that point, his three sons, Matthew, then 17, Michael, then 37, and Jeff, then 36, were driving for Eshleman Racing.
Eshleman was involved as an owner or operator of Bright Minds Unlimited, the Eshleman Meat Company, Eshleman Enterprises, Revenge Mortorsports, Inc. and Eshleman Racing, for all of which he was listed in state documents as president. He was also listed as an officer with Eshleman Cardenas LLC in California. At different times, he made a foray into the publishing world in one capacity or another, first with Fortunado Publications’ The Mirror-Dispatch and Daily Planet Publishing’s Inland Empire Business Journal.
In recent years, despite health challenges, he remained active.
Eshleman died in an accident/rollover at the Eshleman Ranch while driving a tractor.
Jeff Eshleman said, “My dad was the hardest working person I’ve ever known in my life. It didn’t matter if he had to wake up at 3 a.m. in the morning and keep going until 12 midnight, he just did whatever he had to do to get the job done. I learned how to do a whole lot of things from him, how to do all sorts of household repairs, fix broken water pipes, dig out to fix a cracked foundation, work on an automobile in the garage. I think he was happiest when he was out working on the family farm, disking a field or leveling out ground with a tractor. He taught us all to just be honest and put in a hard day’s work so you can live, so you can survive.”
Matthew Eshleman concurred.
“My dad did not want to go on vacation or take time off,” Matthew said. “He enjoyed his work and he led by example. I learned from him that when you enjoy what you’re doing, it’s not really work. He was happiest when he was working, when he was out plowing a field.”
Jeff told the Sentinel, “What sticks out for me about his role as an elected official is the pride he had for the City of Fontana. He was home grown, and he really saw that there are a whole lot of good things about this place. He had an idea of what was a good direction for the city, and even though he didn’t always get his way when he was on the council and was mayor, some of the time he was able to move the city forward, toward the goals he had in mind, the direction he thought it should go. He took a lot of pride in that. I think it was nice on his heart to be involved in that way. You could see it in his eyes when we would drive around the city.”
For him personally, Matthew Eshleman said, he holds his father’s political involvement less dear than the time he spent with him far removed from civic activities.
“What I remember most fondly is watching my dad at the Orange Show Speedway in San Bernardino and racing with my brothers.”
Asked how his father should be remembered, Jeff Eshleman said, “To put it in a nutshell, for the people who didn’t know my dad, I think the easiest thing to say is he was the racing mayor of Southern California.”
-Mark Gutglueck

The Colton Joint Unified School District has sued the County of San Bernardino over the board of supervisors’ April 6 approval of Chandi Group USA’s truck stop to be located at 10951 Cedar Avenue, at the southeast corner of Cedar and Santa Ana Avenue in the unincorporated county community of Bloomington, three-quarters of a mile south of the I-10 Freeway.
The 8.9-acre site where Chandi Group USA intends to locate the truck terminal is immediately adjacent to 28 acres of property owned by the district upon which it had future intentions of building a junior high school. The character and intensity of Chandi Group USA’s Bloomington Commercial Center has significantly changed since it was formerly presented as a proposal to the county in October 2019. At that time, Chandi Group USA said it wanted a zone change and general plan amendment so it could undertake a commercial project that was to have a large restaurant as its centerpiece and which would involve some retail units, two fast food outlets and a gas station. The Bloomington community was generally supportive of that concept.
Multiple versions and plan redrafts followed, in the midst of which opposition to the project formed. According to those project opponents, the facility is most accurately described as a truck stop.
On April 6, 2021, the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors gave unanimous approval to the project. Under the configuration approved, the project is to consist of 260 parking spaces including 149 for cars, 36 to accommodate trucks, and 75 for recreational vehicles or smaller or mid-size trucks, a 9,900-square-foot convenience market, two fast-food drive-thru restaurants, a 2,400-square-foot office and storage building, a guard shack, a 4,800-square-foot maintenance building with four repair bays, truck scales, seven diesel fuel pumps, eight gasoline pumps and above-ground fuel tanks. In the project’s final form, the restaurant, the project’s original selling point, was dispensed with altogether.
The property was zoned for low density residential use, in which the minimum density is to be no greater than a single unit per acre, with agricultural uses permitted on the property. The project proposal called for a zoning amendment altering the residential land use to commercial. In approving the project, the board of supervisors granted that zoning amendment and a general plan amendment. In carrying out that action, the board signed off on the project’s environmental certification as well. Development projects of any significance in California must be processed for approval in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. While the board of supervisors under the California Environmental Quality Act had the option of requiring any of a series of environmental reviews, with the most comprehensive of those being a full-blown environmental impact report in which a thorough analysis of the project would have been carried out accompanied by an exacting set of measures to offset any untoward environmental consequences, the board of supervisors chose instead to utilize the least intensive form of environmental certification, that being a mitigated negative declaration, which was simply a finding by the board that there would be no adverse environmental aftermath to the project being built or that if there was, that negative impact would be adequately addressed by the conditions of approval.
Even before the project was approved, there were residents of Bloomington and others who were asserting that the impacts of the project, including its deleterious effects with regard to air quality, water quality and its burden upon infrastructure in the area, particularly roads, as well as the increase in vehicular and truck traffic it would create rendered the project, if not inadvisable, then one for which the project proponent should have been required to do a full environmental impact report.
The owner of Chandi Group USA, Nachattar Singh Chandi, has made substantial contributions to the political war chests of supervisors Paul Cook, Dawn Rowe and Joe Baca, Jr., and has made a commitment to back the future political endeavors of Board of Supervisors Chairman Curt Hagman. Baca’s acceptance of the project was considered key because Bloomington falls within the county’s Fifth Supervisorial District. Baca is the Fifth District supervisor.
In return for Chandi’s generosity toward them and the assistance he has provided in perpetuating their political careers, members of the board of supervisors pressured the county’s land use staff, including Heidi Duron, the county’s planning director, to gloss over the project’s environmental drawbacks, and provide the project with a staff endorsement before it was considered by the county planning commission at its February 18 meeting and before the board of supervisors considered it on April 6. The land use services department acceded to that pressure, such that its report on the project convinced the planning commission, at its February 18 meeting, to vote 4-to-0 to recommend to the board of supervisors that it approve the project, over the objections of six Bloomington residents who at that time spoke in opposition to the project. Kareem Gongora, Baca’s appointment to the commission, abstained.
Substantial opposition to the project by Bloomington residents was registered at the April 6 board meeting, but the expression of those sentiments did not dissuade the board from approving the project.
In its lawsuit filed in San Bernardino County Superior Court on May 5, 30 days after the board’s vote to approve the project, the Colton Joint Unified School District calls into question the thoroughness of the county’s evaluation and consideration of the project proposal, and the suit seeks a court order that the county rescind the approval given to the project so that a full environmental impact report is prepared before it is reconsidered.
In addition to owning the property abutting the truck stop site, the school district has two elementary schools — Crestmore and Walter Zimmerman — within a quarter-mile of the project site, and operates Slover Mountain High School, which is roughly a half-mile north.
According to the suit, the county failed “egregiously by not providing any analysis or mitigation pertinent to school uses,” in a way that “the county ignored the district’s schools altogether,” by engaging in “scant analysis and fig leaf mitigation.”
County land use staff, in preparing the documentation for the Chandi Group USA’s truck stop, and the board of supervisors, by approving the project, which entailed an alteration of the long-existing zoning at the site, the lawsuit states, ignored entirely the incompatibility of uses between a truck stop and schools where hundreds, indeed thousands, of students will be in attendance on a daily basis during weekdays while school is in session. The county, according to the lawsuit, “is laying the groundwork to transform significant quantities of land in the immediate vicinity of several schools into a trucking, commercial, and logistics hub.”
A central element to the lawsuit is the district’s request for an environmental impact report relating to the project before it is allowed to proceed.
During the April 6 hearing, Board Chairman Curt Hagman went out of his way to prevent Colton Joint Unified School District Superintendent Dr. Frank Miranda from getting into the record prior to the board’s vote on the project the district’s request that Chandi Group USA be required to carry out an environmental impact report.
Miranda spoke to the board of supervisors during the hearing on the project on April 6 about what he said was his “concern for students attending schools operating near the proposed project.”
Before Miranda made his remarks, Terry Tao, an attorney representing the district with regard to real estate issues, obtained information to speak before the board and then ceded his time to Dr. Miranda. Miranda said the proximity of the truck stop to Crestmore Elementary School, a quarter of a mile away, Walter Zimmerman Elementary School, a quarter of a mile away, and Slover Mountain High School, a half mile away, presented safety issues. Miranda noted the district also owned the 28 acres immediately adjoining the project site. Miranda said the district had reviewed the project proposal and submitted in “good faith” input with regard to the project’s plans, expecting a substantive reply. Chandi Enterprises did not respond until March 1, he said, and he indicated the district’s “concerns still have not been addressed adequately.” Those concerns extended to, Miranda said, traffic, the physical endangerment of students, as well as air quality impacts and above-ground diesel tanks at the site.
Just as Miranda was getting to a request that Chandi Enterprises be required to do a complete environmental impact report for the project, he was cut off by Clerk of the Board Lynna Monell because his remarks at that point exceeded three minutes. Despite the consideration that Tao had conceded his speaking time to Miranda, Hagman, as board chairman, did not allow Miranda to continue, keeping Miranda from getting his request that an environmental impact report be completed for the project on the record.
Legal experts are divided as to whether Hagman’s gambit to get the request for a full environmental impact report onto the record prior to the vote will assist the county in staving off the school district’s legal challenge or not.
Under one legal theory, a governmental entity’s action in making a land use decision cannot be challenged after the fact if prior to the approval, at the time and place designated for a public hearing relating to the project approved, as in this case the Chandi Group USA Bloomington Commercial Center truck stop on April 6, the issue relating to the challenge is not raised. Thus, under this legal interpretation, the county can claim “Kings X,” by telling the court that the school district failed to make clear on the record its objection to the county’s use of a mitigated negative declaration rather than a complete environmental impact report to provide the environmental certification of the project.
A different interpretation, however, is that Hagman and Monell actively prevented Miranda from making the request by purposefully abbreviating and foreclosing his comments. Under this interpretation, Hagman having disregarded Tao’s request that his time to speak be provided to Miranda, would further establish that the county had purposefully precluded the request for a full environmental impact report from being lodged.
–Mark Gutglueck

For the second time in four months, a sexual assault has been made on a female customer seeking massage services from therapists plying their trade in the Chino Valley, according to law enforcement authorities.
The May 3 incident involving Omar De Soto in Chino Hills and the January 17 matter in Chino in which Edgar Uriel Estrada was implicated have multiple similarities.
On January 17, 2021, a woman went to Massage Green Spa at 3926 Grand Avenue in Chino for a Sunday massage. According to the woman, her massage therapist attempted to rape her.
Thereafter she drove to the Chino Police Department headquarters, arriving at 1:49 p.m., where she reported the assault. Officers with the department set about trying to identify and locate the perpetrator.
Ultimately, the therapist was identified as Edgar Uriel Estrada, 27 of Moreno Valley. Estrada was summoned to the police station by a detective. When he arrived at the headquarters around 9 p.m. on the evening of January 17, a further investigation including questioning of Estrada took place. He was arrested at 9:29 p.m. and booked on suspicion of sexual penetration with force at 1:08 a.m. Monday, January 18 on $200,000 bail at the West Valley Detention Center in Rancho Cucamonga.
This week, county court records are not available to allow a determination of whether Estrada is yet in custody.
On May 2 another massage therapist from Riverside County forced himself sexually upon one of his customers in a fashion reminiscent of the previous assault.
In that case, a 49-year-old Chino Hills woman arranged to have a Sunday massage through an online company, Soothe, which sets up such services. Soothe sent 38-year-old Omar De Soto to the location specified by the woman.
After De Soto initiated the massage treatment, he sexually assaulted the woman.
Subsequently, the woman contacted the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department, which serves as the police department for Chino Hills. She told detectives she had been sexually assaulted in the course of the treatment.
The following day, Monday May 3, De Soto was taken into custody and jailed at the West Valley Detention Center, on suspicion of sexual assault. Initially held in lieu of $100,000, De Soto has been released after a bond was posted for him.

The San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department’s effort to eradicate large-scale marijuana farms continued unabated last week, with deputies and detectives carrying out at least eight raids on unlicensed cultivation operations in the Eastern Mojave desert region.
That effort, involving more than a dozen sworn law enforcement officers, resulted in the uprooting of over 4,400 marijuana plants, which in their uncured state totaled over eight tons of marijuana.
Since 1999, the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department has been participating in and receiving federal money for the Domestic Cannabis Eradication/Suppression Program. Even in the aftermath of the voters’ 2016 passage of the Adult Use of Marijuana Act, Sheriff John McMahon, with the consent of the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors, applied for and continued to receive those grants, which he then used to offset some, though not all, of his department’s costs in going after marijuana cultivators. At present, the department is using $151,000 obtained through a Domestic Cannabis Eradication/Suppression Program grant to offset the sheriff’s department’s costs in the anti-marijuana crusade.
Simultaneously, at least five cities in San Bernardino County – Adelanto, Barstow, Hesperia, Needles and San Bernardino – are allowing or are making preparations to allow the sale of marijuana or marijuana-based products within their boundaries. At least eight other cities are allowing or at least tolerating the sale of a cannabis-based product – CBD oil – within their jurisdictions.
That is just one element of the schizophrenic approach governmental officials are taking to marijuana at present. For nearly a century, from 1907 until 1996, the use, possession, sale, cultivation, distribution or refinement of marijuana was strictly illegal in California. Marijuana remains classified by the federal government as a Schedule 1 Narcotic, considered in the same class as heroin, cocaine and methamphetamine. In 1996, the passage of Proposition 215, the Compassionate Use of Marijuana Act, by California’s voters made the sale and use of marijuana for medical purposes legal in the state, pursuant to the user having a medical prescription for it. Until Needles in 2012 became the lone exception, San Bernardino County’s cities steadfastly refused to allow medical marijuana dispensaries to operate within their jurisdictions. The passage of the Adult Use of Marijuana Act four-and-a-half years ago, allowing those over 21 to use the drug for its intoxicative effect, has spurred some cities in the county to seek to cash in on the sale of the drug by allowing, in some cases, the retail sale of the plant, in other cases the cultivation of the plant, in other cases the refinement of marijuana and in the case of Hesperia, the distribution of the drug. Most San Bernardino County municipalities are yet resisting allowing marijuana to be commercially available.
The county board of supervisors, which oversees the unincorporated portion of the 20,105-square mile county outside its 22 incorporated cities and two incorporated towns – roughly 94 percent of the county land mass or 19,099 square miles – has perpetuated the marijuana ban.
Hence, Sheriff John McMahon has continued with the eradication/suppression effort. In doing so, he has ostensibly had substantial success. His department is in possession of helicopters outfitted with visual scanners that employ spectrophotometers that can immediately detect the highly distinctive color of marijuana plants. This tool alone has enabled the department to search for needle upon needle in the haystack that is the largest county geographically in the lower 48 states, a land mass larger than Rhode Island, Connecticut, Delaware and New Jersey combined. The department is also able to make a digitized analysis of water and electricity use by the customers of the county’s various utility companies to detect the telltale signs of a marijuana-growing enterprise. Still, the more sophisticated operators of unlicensed marijuana farms, in particular the ones who were functioning a decade, two decades, three decades and four decades ago when marijuana was outright illegal and who were not getting caught then, remain, with only rare exceptions, a step or two or three or four ahead of those on the lookout for them.
What is for many observers the most amusing or most enraging – depending on one’s attitude and point of view – element of the bureaucratic schizophrenia surrounding the marijuana issue in San Bernardino County is the general lack of prosecution that ensues from the suppression/eradication effort. In scores of cases in San Bernardino County over the last few years, individuals have been caught growing quantities of marijuana that would have virtually ensured a perpetrator caught doing the same thing one, two, three, four, five or six decades ago get a 20-year or longer prison sentence.
In most cases now, those caught are not arrested. Some are cited. Where arrests do take place, it is most often for another crime unrelated to marijuana that was noted during the operation. The district attorney’s office, which functions under the aegis of state law, has apparently lost its stomach for prosecuting those caught engaged in marijuana-related activity.
For reasons that have not been explained, despite the consideration that the sheriff’s department is using federal money in the form of grants from the Domestic Cannabis Eradication/Suppression Program, the U.S. Attorney’s Office does not seem interested, particularly, in prosecuting those who have been caught, in most cases red-handed, growing marijuana in contravention to federal law.
During operations in the greater Twentynine Palms area, Desert Heights and Landers on May 5 and May 7, raids were carried out on marijuana cultivation facilities on property near Sespe Street and Alta Avenue in Landers; Covela Avenue and Napa Road in Landers; property adjacent to Napa Road and Alta Avenue in Landers; at Covela Avenue and Sespe Street in Landers; at another site close to Covela Avenue and Sespe Street in Landers; at a site proximate to Kelsey Boulevard and Presswood Drive in Landers; on property at Kachina Drive and Shoshone Valley Road in Desert Heights and at a facility located on property in the 1200 block of Sunrise Avenue in Desert Heights.
It is unclear how many citations were issued by the task force to those believed involved in the cultivation activity.
Five arrests were made, two of which related to activity that could be established as exceeding that of unlicensed cultivation of marijuana.
Carlos Avila, 40, of Sinaloa, Mexico, and Octavio Perez, 25, of Guanajuanto, Mexico, who were at the Napa Road/Alta Avenue operation in Landers, were in possession of handguns and anabolic steroids. They were arrested on charges of cultivation of marijuana and possession of a controlled substance while armed.
Carlos Pulido, 23 of Michoacan, Mexico, was arrested at the Kachina Drive and Shoshone Valley Road operation.
Fernando Gonzalez, 36, and Christian Lopez, 25, both of Michoacan, Mexico, were arrested at the Sunrise Avenue farm.
Pulido, Gonzalez and Lopez are being charged with marijuana cultivation. It is not clear why they were taken into custody rather than being cite released as has lately been the case of those involved in unlicensed marijuana growing.
The previous week, within a single six-hour span on Thursday April 29, the sheriff’s department marijuana eradication task force engaged in raids on five separate agricultural operations, seizing over 2,300 marijuana plants from a location within the 73500 block of Two Mile Road, property at Emerald Street and Pine Springs Avenue, one property at the intersection of Dunlap Road and Canyon Road, another property proximate to Dunlap Road and Canyon Road, and a site at the corner of Redhill Road and Bermuda Avenue, all of which fall within Twentynine Palms and nearby Desert Heights.
-Mark Gutglueck

Representatives Mike Garcia (CA-25), Kevin McCarthy (CA-23), Jay Obernolte (CA-08), and Ken Calvert (CA-42) led a letter from the California Republican Congressional Delegation to U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) Attorney General Merrick Garland regarding the dangerous increase of illegal marijuana grows in southern Californian.
The letter comes due to an alarming escalation in dangerous criminal activity across Southern California related to illegal marijuana grow operations.
“We have heard from our constituents of heinous incidents of intimidation, coercion, and violence being used by illegal growers to ensure that their operations continue unimpeded,” the lawmakers wrote. “There have also been multiple homicides at these grow sites as opposing criminal syndicates engage in turf wars. In September of 2020, seven bodies were discovered at an illegal grow in Riverside County, and, just recently, two bodies were discovered at another site.”
In addition to menacing Californians, the criminals operating the illegal grows are damaging public lands and stealing resources from residents.
“It’s estimated that at the end of 2020, illegal marijuana grows were illegally consuming between 11 and 36 million liters of water daily,” the lawmakers wrote. “Water is already a precious resource in California, we cannot allow these illegal operations to exacerbate the problem further.”
The vast majority of illegal grows are operated by illegal immigrants who have either entered the country illegally or have overstayed visas. Many of the individuals arrested at these marijuana grows have been discovered to be victims of human trafficking, forced into servitude at these grow sites. The sharp increase in illegal grow operations, which swelled as much as 300% in some areas over the last year, is a result of the dangerous combination of lack of law enforcement and lack of border security.
“The growth is fueled in part by the knowledge that criminals who are arrested will ultimately face no consequences,” the lawmakers wrote. “We have heard from local, state, and federal law enforcement who are frustrated that their hard work is routinely rendered pointless by prosecutors who refuse to charge offenders unless they commit additional, ‘more serious’ crimes as well. When prosecutors wait for violent or other serious crimes to occur before charging these criminals, our constituents pay the price.”
The lawmakers requested that the U.S. Attorney General utilize whatever authority is available to address the growing crisis, including prosecuting these criminals to the fullest extent allowable under the law, to cut off the escalating fear and violence in their districts.
Reps. Doug LaMalfa (CA-01), Tom McClintock (CA-04), David Valadao (CA-21), Devin Nunes (CA-22), Young Kim (CA-39), Michelle Steel (CA-48), and Darrell Issa (CA-50) also signed on to the letter requesting answers from DOJ.

Judge David Cohn has postponed once again the hearing he is to conduct for oral arguments following the written briefings relating to multiple points in a citizen group’s lawsuit contesting the Upland City Council’s approval of Bridge Development Partners’ distribution center for online retail behemoth Amazon.
It is anticipated that following those arguments, either immediately or sometime thereafter if he chooses to take the matter under submission, Judge Cohn will make a determination of whether the plaintiffs’ request for the vacation of the project approval will be granted, denied or whether the matter will be considered at trial.
Cohn was initially scheduled to hold the much-delayed hearing on March 12, 2021. Just prior to that date, the hearing was rescheduled for April 23. Thereafter, Judge Cohn rescheduled the hearing for May 7. An unspecified emergency required that Judge Cohn postpone the hearing again until next Monday, May 17. Word now has come that the hearing has been extended once more, and is to be held on Monday June 14, 2021 at 1:30 p.m. in the San Bernardino Justice Center at 247 West Third Street in San Bernardino.
The project has now been on hold for more than 13 months. In giving Bridge Development Partners go-ahead on the project by a 4-to-1 margin on April 1, 2020, the Upland City Council used a less exacting mode of environmental certification, referred to as a mitigated negative declaration, than a comprehensive environmental impact report for the 201,096-square foot building to be located north of Foothill Blvd. south of Cable Airport.
A citizens group calling itself Upland Community First formed and sued, seeking to have the project approval rescinded, and an EIR, an environmental impact report, the most comprehensive type of environmental impact evaluation, carried out in conjunction with the city council’s reconsideration of the project.
The city, supported by Bridge Development Partners, has asserted that the city and the developer fulfilled all of the requirements for project approval under the law, and that the project complies with all environmental regulations.
Upland Community First contends the testimony of several experts with regard to land use and environmental impacts put into the record at the April 1, 2020 meeting and previous planning commission meetings made it incumbent upon the city to consider specific elements of the project proposal and undertake a more comprehensive evaluation of the project or deny it outright.
Upland Community First wants Judge Cohn to consider in particular statements made by four people considered to be land use or environmental issue experts.
One of those, Roger Stephenson, a civil engineer, said the city had not put into the record all of the correspondence related to the project submitted by the public and that the development agreement considered by the city council was different from the one recommended to the planning commission.
Stephenson said at the April 1, 2020 hearing that the development agreement left “too much open for interpretation or misinterpretation” and that “revisions incorporated this late in the approval process indicate the city realizes that the mitigated negative declaration and supporting documents are inadequate. The terms within the city approval documents are not mitigation measures under the California Environmental Quality Act.”
Another of those experts, Dr. Brinda Sarathy, a professor of environmental science at Pitzer College, said a full environmental impact report was essential to maintain the integrity of the city’s planning process.
“The city’s claim that the project is a warehouse permissible under the commercial/industrial mixed-use zoning is a significant misrepresentation of the actual operations of the project, which is not a mere warehouse for the primary storage of commercial goods but rather a soon-to-be node in a delivery station network characterized by the ongoing and continuous sorting and distribution of goods on a 24/7 basis,” Sarathy stated. “It is not a currently permitted land use under the existing general plan.”
A third expert, Lois Sicking Dieter, an engineer with the California Environmental Protection Agency, decried the “incomplete hydrology and incomplete water quality analysis in the mitigated negative declaration,” saying its “findings are inaccurate because the city relied upon a flawed methodology, outdated software, generalized conclusions based on erroneous data, undefined calculations causing misleading results and analysis, lack of detail and inaccuracies in the city’s data input.” She asserted that the analysis and conclusions of the entire declaration are misleading, as they understate the environmental impact of the proposed project. She said the city’s claim to having obtained similar data and to have arrived at the same conclusion after downdating the software from a 1999 version to a 2016 version was “physically impossible.”
The stormwater system at the site would not be able to capture or contain water flow from rain events, Sicking-Dieter said, after the project is completed. She said the city was further ignoring the historic nature and features of Route 66 – Foothill Boulevard – in its consideration of the placement of the project at that location.
A fourth expert, California State University at San Bernardino economics professor Eric Nilsson, said “I took a close look at the air quality assessment and a close look at the greenhouse gas emissions assessment, and frankly I did not like what I saw. To not mince words, the studies are so poorly done they need to be set aside as inadequate. There needs to be a full scale environmental impact study performed. There are mathematical errors in some of the tables. The tables refer to appendices that do not have material that is supposed to support the material in the tables. So, someone revised these reports and failed to actually make things synchronize. It is pretty shoddy work. As one example of questionable assumptions that are included in the air quality assessment and the greenhouse gas assessment: Built into the model that the consultants generated was the assumption that when a vehicle leaves the warehouse to deliver something, the average number of miles they go is going to be 6.9 miles. 6.9 miles for an Amazon delivery? It takes that long to get to La Verne, but then once the truck gets to La Verne, it drives around for a couple of hours delivering packages, racking up sixty miles more above the 6.9. That is just one error out of many, or one questionable assumption of many. The implication of that is the air quality assessment reports and the greenhouse gas assessment reports grossly underestimate the number of miles that will be driven by vehicles associated with their warehouse. By grossly underestimating the number of miles that will be driven by those vehicles, they grossly underestimate the greenhouse gas emissions and other sort of noxious fumes that will be generated by those vehicles.”
The input from Stephenson, Sarathy, Sicking-Dieter and Nilsson is contained within the 7,000 pages of the administrative record relating to the project that has been presented to the court by the plaintiffs.
The city, represented by Ginetta Lorraine Giovinco of the law firm Richards Watson & Gershon, maintains that the Upland met all of the procedural requirements under California law to approve the project and that the city council, which has the ultimate land use authority in the City of Upland, was acting entirely within its lawful discretion to utilize a mitigated negative declaration as opposed to a full environmental impact report to carry out the environmental certification of the project.
Project proponents say that Upland Community First is standing in the way of progress, and that traditional brick and mortar retail establishments are giving way to on-line sales operations such as Amazon. They say that Bridge Development was willing to offset the impacts of the project at the time of approval by agreeing to put up $18 million in project impact fees, and has since more than doubled that offer to upwards of $39 million. By not agreeing to drop its lawsuit against the project, they say, Upland Community First is risking the city not receiving more than $21 million in project impact offsets beyond the $17 million that Bridge Development agreed to in April 2020.
Those obstructing the project are a bunch of limp-wristed, quiche-eating tree-huggers and environmental activists who would be content to prevent any further development from taking place everywhere in California, those in favor of the project say.
Eric Gavin, a Upland resident, said the project opponents were nothing more than a backward-looking “angry say-no-to-everything crowd.”

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
FBN 20210004235
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: 4/22/2021
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: APRIL 16, 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 4/23, 4/30, 5/7 & 5/14, 2021
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
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.
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 HERNANDEZ has been filed by SHAWNA HERNANDEZ in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
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.
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 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
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

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 20210004013
The following entity is doing business as BRAVO BURGERS-REDLANDS 1911 REDLANDS BLVD. REDLANDS, CA 92373: VNAT RESTAURANTS, INC. 1911 REDLANDS BLVD. REDLANDS, CA 92373
Mailing Address: 41847 BALDERAMA TEMECULA, CA 92952
This Business is Conducted By: A CORPORATION A California Corporation  C2455163
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.
EMMANUEL VITAKIS
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 4/19/2021
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
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 Adlninistration 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 5 8(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. Euclid Avenue, Second Floor
Upland, CA 91786
Telephone No: (909) 608-7426
Email address: mail@wefight4you.com
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel May 7, May 14 & May 21, 2021.
NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF:
BARBARA J. SUMMERVILLE
NO. PROPS 2100557
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of BARBARA J. SUMMERVILLE
A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by BERL G. SUMMERVILLE in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that BERL G. SUMMERVILLE 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 24, 2021 at Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, 247 West Third Street, San Bernardino, CA 92415, San Bernardino District.
IF YOU OBJECT to the granting of the petition, you should appear at the hearing and state your objections or file written objections with the court before the hearing. Your appearance may be in person or by your attorney.
IF YOU ARE A CREDITOR or a contingent creditor of the decedent, you must file your claim with the court and mail a copy to the personal representative appointed by the court within the later of either (1) four months from the date of first issuance of letters to a general personal representative, as defined in section 58(b) of the California Probate Code, or (2) 60 days from the date of mailing or personal delivery to you of a notice under Section 9052 of the California Probate Code.
Other California statutes and legal authority may affect your rights as a creditor. You may want to consult with an attorney knowledgeable in California law.
YOU MAY EXAMINE the file kept by the court. If you are a person interested in the estate, you may file with the court a Request for Special Notice (form DE-154) of the filing of an inventory and appraisal of estate assets or of any petition or account as provided in Probate Code section 1250. A Request for Special Notice form is available from the court clerk.
Filed: April 26, 2021
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 Berl Summerville
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel May 7, 14 & 21, 2021.
SUMMONS – (CITACION JUDICIAL)
CASE NUMBER (NUMERO DEL CASO) CIVDS2022567
NOTICE TO DEFENDANTS (AVISO DEMANDADO): F.S.G.M. MEDICAL CLINIC, INC., a California corporation; COUNTY OF ORANGE, a local public entity; ARTURO RUIZ, an individual; JOHN. H. BUCKNER, an individual; CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, a local public entity; STATE OF CALIFORNIA FRANCHISE TAX BOARD, an agency of the state of California; COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, a local public entity; PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, L.L.C, a Delaware limited liability company; ALL PERSONS UNKNOWN CLAIMING ANY LEGAL OR EQUITABLE RIGHT, TITLE, ESTATE, LIEN OR INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THE COMPLAINT ADVERSE TO PLAINTIFF’S TITLE, OR ANY CLOUD UPON PLAINTIFF’S TILE THERETO and DOES 1 -20, INCLUSIVE.
YOU ARE BEING SUED BY PLAINTIFF (LO ESTA DEMANDANDO EL DEMANDANTE):
GILBERT SANDOVAL
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):
R. SAM PRICE SBN 208603
PRICE LAW FIRM, APC
300 E STATE STREET SUITE 620
REDLANDS, CA 92373
(909) 328-7000
sam@pricelawfirm.com
DATE (Fecha): 10/13/2020
Clerk (Secretario), by Sylvia Guajardo, Deputy (Adjunto)
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on: 5/07, 5/14, 5/21 & 5/28, 2021.

NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF BARBARA A. GILLESPIE
Case No. PROPS2100476
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both, of BARBARA A. GILLESPIE
A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by Patricia Ybarra in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that Patricia Ybarra 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 on June 1, 2021 at 9:00 AM in Dept. No. S36 located at 247 W. Third St., San Bernardino, CA 92415.
IF YOU OBJECT to the granting of the petition, you should appear at the hearing and state your objections or file written objections with the court before the hearing. Your appearance may be in person or by your attorney.
IF YOU ARE A CREDITOR or a contingent creditor of the decedent, you must file your claim with the court and mail a copy to the personal representative appointed by the court within the later of either (1) four months from the date of first issuance of letters to a general personal representative, as defined in section 58(b) of the California Probate Code, or (2) 60 days from the date of mailing or personal delivery to you of a notice under section 9052 of the California Probate Code.
Other California statutes and legal authority may affect your rights as a creditor. You may want to consult with an attorney knowledgeable in California law.
YOU MAY EXAMINE the file kept by the court. If you are a person interested in the estate, you may file with the court a Request for Special Notice (form DE-154) of the filing of an inventory and appraisal of estate assets or of any petition or account as provided in Probate Code section 1250. A Request for Special Notice form is available from the court clerk.
Attorney for petitioner:
MAUREEN MURATORE ESQ SBN 155156
LAW OFFICE OF
MAUREEN MURATORE
10700 CIVIC CENTER DR
STE 200
RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91730
CN977531 GILLESPIE May 7,14,21, 2021

FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME
STATEMENT FILE NO-20210004058
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: 101 Cinema Club, 15101 Fairfield Ranch Rd, 7111, Chino Hills, CA 91709, Mailing Address: 15101 Fairfield Ranch Rd, 7111, Chino Hills, CA 91709, Skyler A. Malone, 15101 Fairfield Ranch Rd, 7111, Chino Hills, CA 91709, Jessica A. Dixon, 15101 Fairfield Ranch Rd, 7111, Chino Hills, CA 91709
Business is Conducted By: A General Partnership
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/Jessica A. Dixon
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 04/20/21
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: 04/11/2021
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).
05/07/21, 05/14/21, 05/21/21, 05/27/21

FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME
STATEMENT FILE NO-20210004416
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: Hungry Dog, 11462 Vale Dr, Fontana, CA 92337, Jesus M. Veloz, 11462 Vale Dr, 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/Jesus M Veloz
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 04/28/21
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: N/A
County Clerk, s/ I1327
NOTICE- This fictitious business name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see section 14400 et. Seq. Business & Professions Code).
05/07/21, 05/14/21, 05/21/21, 05/27/21

FBN 20210004468
The following entity is doing business as CAFE WANG 2316 D STREET LA VERNE, CA 91750 F.W. MINGLI, INC 2316 D STREET LA VERNE, CA 91750
A California Corporation  3620494
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.
FANG WANG
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: JULY 1, 2016
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 05/07/21, 05/14/21, 05/21/21 & 05/28/21
T.S. No. 19-21335-SP-CA Title No. 191260552-CA-VOI A.P.N. 0218-741-36-0-000 NOTICE OF TRUSTEE’S SALE. YOU ARE IN DEFAULT UNDER A DEED OF TRUST DATED 11/17/2006. 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: Kenneth Gabriel, an unmarried man Duly Appointed Trustee: National Default Servicing Corporation Recorded 11/28/2006 as Instrument No. 2006-0803327 (or Book, Page) of the Official Records of San Bernardino County, CA. Date of Sale: 06/10/2021 at 12:00 PM Place of Sale: At the North Arrowhead Avenue entrance to the County Courthouse, 351 North Arrowhead Avenue, San Bernardino, CA 92401 Estimated amount of unpaid balance and other charges: $566,489.47 Street Address or other common designation of real property: 3471 Arcadian Shores Avenue Ontario, CA 91761 A.P.N.: 0218-741-36-0-000 The undersigned Trustee disclaims any liability for any incorrectness of the street address or other common designation, if any, shown above. If no street address or other common designation is shown, directions to the location of the property may be obtained by sending a written request to the beneficiary within 10 days of the date of first publication of this Notice of Sale. If the Trustee is unable to convey title for any reason, the successful bidder’s sole and exclusive remedy shall be the return of monies paid to the Trustee, and the successful bidder shall have no further recourse. The requirements of California Civil Code Section 2923.5(b)/2923.55(c) were fulfilled when the Notice of Default was recorded. NOTICE TO POTENTIAL BIDDERS: If you are considering bidding on this property lien, you should understand that there are risks involved in bidding at a trustee auction. You will be bidding on a lien, not on the property itself. Placing the highest bid at a trustee auction does not automatically entitle you to free and clear ownership of the property. You should also be aware that the lien being auctioned off may be a junior lien. If you are the highest bidder at the auction, you are or may be responsible for paying off all liens senior to the lien being auctioned off, before you can receive clear title to the property. You are encouraged to investigate the existence, priority, and size of outstanding liens that may exist on this property by contacting the county recorder’s office or a title insurance company, either of which may charge you a fee for this information. If you consult either of these resources, you should be aware that the same lender may hold more than one mortgage or deed of trust on the property. NOTICE TO PROPERTY OWNER: The sale date shown on this notice of sale may be postponed one or more times by the mortgagee, beneficiary, trustee, or a court, pursuant to Section 2924g of the California Civil Code. The law requires that information about trustee sale postponements be made available to you and to the public, as a courtesy to those not present at the sale. If you wish to learn whether your sale date has been postponed, and, if applicable, the rescheduled time and date for the sale of this property, you may call or visit this Internet Web site www.ndscorp.com/sales, using the file number assigned to this case 19-21335-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: 05/10/2021 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 05/14/2021, 05/21/2021, 05/28/2021 CPP351083
CASE NUMBER: (Numero del Caso): 20STCV00632
SUMMONS ON FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
(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 Los Angeles-Stanley Mosk Courthouse, 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012.
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, SBN: 219233, ALVARADOSMITH, APC, 633 West Fifth St., Suite 900, Los Angeles, California 90071, 213-229-2400
Date: (Fecha) 09/25/2020
SHERRI R. CARTER, Executive Officer / Clerk of Court (Secretario)
By: V. DELGADILLO, Deputy (Adjunto)
CN977506 CHENG Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel May 14, 21, 28, & June 4, 2021

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR CHANGE OF NAME CASE NUMBER CIVSB2108812
TO ALL INTERESTED PERSONS: Petitioner: JAMES FLANNIGAN filed with this court for a decree changing names as follows:
JAMES **** FLANNIGAN III to Flannigan III, 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: 06/15/21
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: May 4, 2021
Lynn M. Poncin
Judge of the Superior Court.
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on 05/14/21, 05/21/21, 05/28/21 & 06/04/21

FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME STATEMENT FILE NO-20210004090
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: Industrious Engineering; Florista Flowers, 1083 N 7th St, Colton, CA 92324, Matthew A. Romero, 1083 N 7th St, Colton, CA 92324
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/Matthew A Romero
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: 04/07/2021
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).
05/14/21, 05/21/21, 05/28/21, 06/04/21

FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME STATEMENT FILE NO-20210004031
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: JNT Property Service,18056 Pokeroot Lane, San Bernardino, CA 92407, Joe Gutierrez, 18056 Pokeroot Lane, San Bernardino, CA 92407, Christina L. Ceballos-Gutierrez, 18056 Pokeroot Lane, San Bernardino, CA 92407
Business is Conducted By: A General Partnership
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 Gutierrez
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: 09/20/2017
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).
05/14/21, 05/21/21, 05/28/21, 06/04/21

FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME
STATEMENT FILE NO-20210004278
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: Posey Rosie; Posey Rosie Lashes; Posey Rosie Beauty, 1078 Mountain Crest Dr, San Bernardino, CA 92407, Shanyle D. Jones, 1078 Mountain Crest Dr, San Bernardino, CA 92407
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/Shanyle D. Jones
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 04/26/2021
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: 01/30/2020
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).
05/14/21, 05/21/21, 05/28/21, 06/04/21

FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME STATEMENT FILE NO-20210004762
The following person(s) is(are) doing business as: Campus Smoke Shop, 659 E. 15th St #A, Upland, CA 91786, Brian Younan, 16161 Carmine St, Fontana, CA 92336
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/Brian Younan
This statement was filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 05/05/2021
I hereby certify that this is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office.
Began Transacting Business: 04/01/2021
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).
05/14/21, 05/21/21, 05/28/21, 06/04/21

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: 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/ 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 & Corrected on: 05/14/21, 05/21/21, 05/28/21, 06/04/21

FBN 20210004394
The following person is doing business as: PLAZA 7 3654 HIGHLAND AVE. SUITE 13 HIGHLAND, CA 92346 ( COUNTY OF PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO ); [ MAILING ADDRESS 16516 SAN BERNARDINIO AVE. FONTANA, CA 92335]; FADI MAHER 16516 SAN BERNARDINO AVE. FONTANA, CA 92335
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ FADI MAHER, OWNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 04/27/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 05/07/2021, 05/12/2021, 05/21/2021, 05/28/2021 CNBB18202101IR

FBN 20210004399
The following person is doing business as: GONZALEZ TRANSPORT 2137 CHRYSLER DR APT #4 MODESTO, CA 95350 ( COUNTY OF PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO ); JULIO A MATOS GONZALEZ 2137 CHRYSLER DR APT #4 MODESTO, CA 95350
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ JULIO A MATOS GONZALEZ, OWNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 04/27/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 05/07/2021, 05/12/2021, 05/21/2021, 05/28/2021 CNBB18202102MT

FBN 20210004398
The following person is doing business as: J&J ROAD SERVICE 6803 CORIANDER DR OAK HILLS, CA 92344 ( COUNTY OF PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO ); JUAN V CORONA 6803 CORIANDER DR OAK HILLS, CA 92344
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ JUAN V. CORONA, OWNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 04/27/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 05/07/2021, 05/12/2021, 05/21/2021, 05/28/2021 CNBB18202103MT

FBN 20210004345
The following person is doing business as: LB CAR SALES 12627 ILONA ST VICTORVILLE, CA 92392 ( COUNTY OF PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO );[ MAILING ADDRESS 311 W CIVIC CENTER DR SANTA ANA, CA 92701]; CHRISTIAN O VERDUZCO-VILLASENOR 12627 ILONA ST VICTORVILLE, CA 92392
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ CHRISTIAN O VERDUZCO-VILLASENOR, OWNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 04/27/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 05/07/2021, 05/12/2021, 05/21/2021, 05/28/2021 CNBB18202104CV
FBN 20210003871
The following person is doing business as: ACTIVEINK 11250 RAMONA AVE #815 MONTCLAIR, CA 91763 ( COUNTY OF PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO );[ MAILING ADDRESS 311 W CIVIC CENTER DR SANTA ANA, CA 92701]; EDUARDO CARDENAS VILLAESCUELA 11250 RAMONA AVE #815 MONTCLAIR, CA 91763
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: MARCH 28, 2021
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ EDUARDO CARDENAS VILLAESCUELA, OWNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 04/14/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 05/07/2021, 05/12/2021, 05/21/2021, 05/28/2021 CNBB18202105CV

FBN 20210004413
The following person is doing business as: DTLA ENTERPRISE; FIT & CLAM; CALIFORNIA IMMIGRATION SERVICES 12562 CENRAL AVE # A CHINO, CA 91710 ( COUNTY OF PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO );[ MAILING ADDRESS 1110202 BLACKWOOD ST FONTANA, CA 92337]; DTLA ENTERPRISE 440 S. BROAD WAY ST. G-8 LOS ANGELES, CA 90013
The business is conducted by: A CORPORATION
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ KELLEM Y. POLANCO, SECRETARY Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 04/28/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 05/07/2021, 05/12/2021, 05/21/2021, 05/28/2021 CNBB18202106MT

FBN 20210004376
The following person is doing business as: IE FUNNEL CAKES 122 HARTZEL AVE REDLANDS, CA 92374 ( COUNTY OF PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO ); JENNIFER M MADRIGAL 122 HARTZELL AVE REDLANDS, CA 92374; DAVID VALENTIN SOTELO 122 HARTZELL AVE REDLANDS, CA 92374
The business is conducted by: A GENERAL PARTNERSHIP
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ JENNIFER M. MADRIGAL, GENERAL PARTNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 04/27/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 05/07/2021, 05/12/2021, 05/21/2021, 05/28/2021 CNBB18202107MT

FBN 20210004406
The following person is doing business as: ROMEROS NURSERY 13645 FOOTHILL BLVD FONTANA, CA 92335 ( COUNTY OF PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO );[ MAILING ADDRESS 13763 NEWCASTLE CT FONTANA, CA 92335]; ERIC ROMERO 13645 FOOTHILL BLVD FONTANA, CA 925335
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ ERIC ROMERO, OWNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 04/28/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 05/07/2021, 05/12/2021, 05/21/2021, 05/28/2021 CNBB18202108MT

FBN 20210003878
The following person is doing business as: H-M MUFFLERS 993 W. VALLEY BLVD. #216 BLOOMINGTON, CA 92316; ERNESTO RAUDA 993 W. VALLEY BLVD. #216 BLOOMINGTON, CA 92316
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ ERNESTO RAUDA, OWNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 04/14/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 04/30/2021, 05/07/2021, 05/14/2021, 05/21/2021 CNBB17202101IR

FBN 20210003675
The following person is doing business as: BRIDGE CITY COLLECTION 118 E. FOOTHILL BLVD. SUITE B-2 RIALTO, CA 92376;[ MAILING ADDRESS 224 CORAL TREE DR. RIALTO, CA 92377]; JESSE PEDROZA 118 E. FOOTHILL BLVD. SUITE B-2 RIALTO, CA 92376
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: OCT 01, 2019
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ JESSE PEDROZA, OWNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 04/07/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 04/30/2021, 05/07/2021, 05/14/2021, 05/21/2021 CNBB17202102IR

FBN 20210003791
The following person is doing business as: FATHOMLESS; FATIGATION; NOUVEAU ARRIVE 1767 NAPLES AVE REDLANDS, CA 92374; DIAMOND HOLDINGS, INC. 1767 NAPLES AVE REDLANDS, CA 92374
The business is conducted by: A CORPORATION
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ KEITH BECK II, CFO Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 04/12/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 04/30/2021, 05/07/2021, 05/14/2021, 05/21/2021 CNBB17202103IR

FBN 20210003761
The following person is doing business as: THOUGHT CHASING 210 E 19TH STREET APT 5 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404;[ MAILING ADDRESS 311 W CIVIC CENTER DR SANTA ANA, CALIF 92701]; ANTHONY S AGUIRRE 210 E 19TH STREET APT 5 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92404
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: MARCH 02, 2021
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ ANTHONY STEVE AGIRRE, OWNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 04/09/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 04/30/2021, 05/07/2021, 05/14/2021, 05/21/2021 CNBB17202104CV

FBN 20210004005
The following person is doing business as: JUICE IT UP REDLANDS ORANGE TREE MARKETPLACE 1275 ALABAMA ST REDLANDS, CA 92374;[ MAILING ADDRESS 1275 ALBAMA ST REDLANDS, CA 92374]; ACA JUICE COMPANY 629 ORANGE ST REDLANDS, CA 92374
The business is conducted by: A CORPORATION
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ NOEMI GALVAN, CEO Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 04/19/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 04/30/2021, 05/07/2021, 05/14/2021, 05/21/2021 CNBB17202105IR
FBN 20210004853
The following person is doing business as: ARREOLA’S MOVING & INSTALLATION SERVICES; OC USED OFFICE FURNITURE 1380 W. 7TH STREET SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92411 ( COUNTY OF PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO ); FREDY ARREOLA GUTIERREZ 1380 W. 7TH STREET SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92411
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ FREDY ARREOLA GUTIERREZ, OWNER, OWNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 05/07/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 05/14/2021, 05/21/2021, 05/28/2021, 06/04/2021 CNBB19202101MC

FBN 20210004016
The following person is doing business as: HONEYBEE’S GARDEN 12223 HIGHLAND AVE STE 106 #609 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91739 ( COUNTY OF PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO ); BIANCA A BALTAZAR 12223 HIGHLAND AVE STE 106 #609 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91739
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: N/A
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ BIANCA A BALTAZAR, OWNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 04/19/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 05/14/2021, 05/21/2021, 05/28/2021, 06/04/2021 CNBB19202102IR

FBN 20210004022
The following person is doing business as: MTN JEM HOME INSPECTIONS 255 OAK DR LAKE ARROWHEAD, CA 92352;[ MAILING ADDRESS PO BOX 90614 SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92427] ( COUNTY OF PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SAN BERNARDINO ); CAROLINE DROVER 255 OAK DR LAKE ARROWHEAD, CA 92352
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: APRIL 16, 2021
By signing, I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime (B&P Code 179130. I am also aware that all information on this statement becomes Public Record upon filing.
s/ JASEN MATTINGLY, OWNER Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 04/19/2021
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel 05/14/2021, 05/21/2021, 05/28/2021, 06/04/2021 CNBB19202103IR

By clicking on the blue portal below, you can download a PDF of the May 7 edition of the San Bernardino County Sentinel.

Sentinel 05-07-21

With warehouse development in the Inland Empire continuing unabated and actually accelerating, the Colton City Council this week took a step toward limiting such development within the Hub City’s 16.04 square miles.
The action taken Tuesday, May 4 was temporary, and is to remain in effect 45 days until June 18. The council gave city staff direction to study the advisability and long term implication of allowing any remaining fast-depleting undeveloped land in the city to be converted into warehouses, distribution centers or similar uses. If staff has not completed by June 18 its findings on whether permitting more warehouse development in the city qualifies as a sensible land use strategy and what mitigations should accompany that type of development if it is allowed to occur, then the council indicated it could at that time extend the ban on further warehouse/distribution center development for another 10 months and 15 days, and for an additional year beyond that, if necessary.
Two warehouse projects that have already wended their way through the city’s application, land use evaluation, planning and building permit process will not be impacted by the moratorium.
A staff report authored by Colton Development Services Director Mark Tomich forwarded to the city council by City Manager Bill Smith states, “Several Colton Municipal Code sections authorize the establishment of warehouses, including within the industrial park zone (I-P), light manufacturing zone (M-1), heavy industrial zone (M-2), various overlay zones, and specific plan areas. However, due to the recent and rapid expansion of industrial developments within the city and neighboring communities, and particularly the development and expansion of warehouses, residents and businesses have experienced various adverse impacts related to these industrial developments, including incompatibility with adjacent uses, increased truck traffic, damage to local streets, loss of potential economic revenue, and deteriorating air quality and environmental health. In particular, the placement of these warehouses, distribution centers, and logistics facilities, including related uses and truck storage facilities within the city are a current and immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare. As a result, the city requires time to study the adverse impacts of warehouses and truck storage facilities and develop comprehensive policy guidance to address the adverse impacts.”
The report defines warehouses as “any use for the conduct, business, or management of storing, safekeeping, freight forwarding, handling, keeping inventory, and/or distribution activities for any product or component, including but not limited to goods, wares, consumer products, materials, or merchandise, partially or wholly within an enclosed space, building, or other structure.”
Tomich’s report notes that “Logistics and industrial developments are an important part of the city’s, State, and national economy and provide both positive and negative impacts on the community. Currently, such developments, and in particular warehouses, have been in high demand due to the growing economy and decrease in vacant, developable land. The city’s zoning code, codified in Title 18 of the Colton Municipal Code, is dated and does not give the city adequate tools or assurances to address the issues created by warehouses. For example, there are not sufficient policies and standards that would prevent the siting a warehouse of significant size and height immediately adjacent to a residence or school.”
Additionally, according to the report, “Warehouse uses, by their nature, generate significant truck traffic that often occurs on a 24-hour and daily basis, based upon the needs of the business. Truck traffic can cause traffic congestion, detrimental air quality, noise, vibration, and disruption to the peace and quiet that is necessary for the enjoyment of residential neighborhoods and efficacy of educational uses. These trucks travel on truck routes as well as other streets to reach their destinations and pose unique and challenging traffic issues because of their sheer size, such as:
* Increased safety risk for smaller vehicles, pedestrians, and bicyclists;
* Damage to city streets and property/facilities from collisions (reported and unreported); i.e., street lights, traffic signal equipment, signs, trees, curbs, medians, etc.;
* Traffic congestion and reduced levels of service on streets and at intersections; and
* Increased impacts from improperly over-loaded trucks.”
Tomich noted that “Diesel engines emit a complex mixture of air pollutants, including both gaseous and solid material.” The solid material, Tomich said, is of the size “most associated with adverse health effects of the air pollutants that have ambient air quality standards. These health effects include cardiovascular and respiratory hospitalizations, and premature death.”
In addition, Tomich said, “The trucks also cause noise and vibrations when traveling on the roadways next to residential areas and educational uses. The increase in industrial developments, and particularly warehouses, in recent years and the resulting increase in truck traffic has most likely made the conditions worse for the residents and students who reside or go to school adjacent to major roadways and especially adjacent to truck routes.”
Tomich asked the city council to provide staff with an opportunity to “study and develop policy guidance to ensure there is logical relationship between the placement of warehouses and available truck routes to avoid the deleterious effects of routing trucks past sensitive uses. Without additional policy guidance, the establishment, expansion, and modification of warehouses and truck storage facilities pose an immediate threat to the public health, safety, and welfare. To avoid any further aforementioned adverse impacts, staff recommends that the city council consider adopting a moratorium on the establishment, expansion, or modification of warehouses and truck storage facilities that are located throughout the city. The moratorium would allow for a measured approach to study and develop appropriate policies and development standards to address warehouses.”
With Councilman John Echeverria absent, the council voted 6-to-0 to declare the moratorium.
Going forward over the next six weeks, Tomich and staff will endeavor to meet with landowners, businesses, residents, schools, and other elements of the community to hear their concerns relating to further warehouse development, examine the environmental and health impacts on the community from warehouses and truck-related uses to determine the mitigation measures necessary to better protect the community from those impacts, including siting criteria, distance separation, sound walls, alternative pavement materials to reduce noise, and programs related to improving community’s health.
Tomich and staff will also consider incompatibility issues between warehouses and other land uses, while looking at buffering between them, and the possible adjustment of hours of operations, and transitioning some industrial areas to alternative land uses. Staff will seek to identify currently existing warehouses that are legal non-conforming uses, no longer legal-non-conforming uses and illegally operating warehouses with a mind to phasing them out of operation. Staff will examine alternative pavement materials to reduce the long-term maintenance costs of roads heavily traveled by trucks and determine whether designated truck routes can be modified to provide the most efficient truck routes and ensure the best protection of the residential areas and educational uses. Staff will look at the characteristics of different types of warehouses to understand impacts and develop land use recommendations for various types of facilities, including cataloging the existing points of origin and destination for large trucks to formulate land use recommendations and preferences for locating large warehouses. Staff is to also evaluate existing and projected utilization and capacity of designated truck routes and non-designated truck routes, including providing so-called “last mile” recommendations for moving trucks on non-designated truck routes.
Staff will also perform a fiscal impact analysis to obtain a more accurate accounting of the revenues generated from warehouses to see if the money they provide to the city through taxes and other means exceeds the city’s costs for providing the city’s warehouses with services.

The focus of the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department task force that is looking toward suppressing proliferating unlicensed marijuana cultivating facilities appears to be moving eastward.
On Thursday, April 29, sheriff’s personnel, including deputies, detectives, at least two sergeants and one lieutenant were heavily engaged in raids on five separate agricultural operations entailing large numbers of marijuana plants in Twentynine Palms and nearby Desert Heights.
The department assigned 11 deputies and detectives to do the heavy lifting and grunt work, while the sergeants and lieutenants monitored the results. In a six-and-a-half hour span, search warrants were served and all traces of marijuana cultivation, including over 2,300 marijuana plants were seized from a location within the 73500 block of Two Mile Road, property at Emerald Street and Pine Springs Avenue, one property at the intersection of Dunlap Road and Canyon Road, another property proximate to Dunlap Road and Canyon Road, and a site at the corner of Redhill Road and Bermuda Avenue.
While the deputies and detectives encountered some people known or suspected to have been involved in the cultivation activity during the course of the operations, those individuals were not arrested. Two men, Pai Sivilay, 67, and Somkhit Sivilay, 35, were cited for illegal cultivation of marijuana, but released.
The operation at Emerald Street and Pine Springs Avenue was the site of a previous raid on April 16, at which time 476 marijuana plants were seized. When deputies and detectives returned 13 days later, 466 new seedlings were well on their way to maturity.
Despite the vigor with which the sheriff’s department is carrying out its anti-marijuana cultivation operations, there is a question as to the program’s legitimacy in the face of shifting societal, attitudinal and legal standards. 1996’s Proposition 215, the Compassionate Use of Marijuana Act, legalized marijuana for medicinal purposes. Nevertheless, marijuana remained outlawed for recreational use. In San Bernardino County, in particular, local authorities in past decades made a public show of being officially opposed to the use of marijuana in any form. Collectively, they continued to disallow the sale or distribution of marijuana for medical use by denying permits to those seeking to establish dispensaries. This led to the intensification of a widespread underground marijuana distribution network, one which in any event had already existed prior to the passage of Proposition 215. That black market continued to flourish, at an even greater intensity than before, continuing to expose those below the age of majority to easy marijuana availability.
Corruption of local law enforcement persisted, with anywhere from a quarter to a third of police officers routinely carrying a quantity of the drug in their patrol cars to use as a pretext for detaining, citing, arresting or taking physical action against citizens encountered in the field.
In 2012, public officials in Needles, the county’s least populated and easternmost city with 4,900 residents on the shore of the Colorado River across from Arizona, elected to take advantage of its location at the gateway to California, becoming the first of the county’s 24 municipalities to bow to the new social reality, clearing the way for five licensed marijuana dispensaries to operate within its city limits.
In July 2014, San Bernardino City Attorney Gary Saenz, taking stock of the number of pot shops sprouting up in the county’s largest city, offered his view that the cost and difficulty of shutting down dispensaries made enforcement of the city’s ban on the enterprises “futile.”
In 2016, Proposition 64, the Adult Use of Marijuana Act, was passed by California’s voters.
The City of Adelanto, which was not on the best of financial footing, moved rapidly to take advantage of the law, seeking to open the city to large scale marijuana cultivation operations as well as manufacturing concerns processing and wielding the plant into edibles and poultices for physical maladies, a strategy its elected officials said would generate substantial revenue for the city. It further legalized dispensaries and pot shops.
In Barstow, 39 miles north, Rich Harpole, had acceded to the elected position of city councilman after spending all of his adult working life once he left the military as a police officer. In his 24 years with the Barstow Police Department, Harpole had risen to the rank of lieutenant before retiring. A primary element of his assignment during his last decade-and-a-half with the police force was overseeing drug interdiction efforts. In the 1980s, 1990s and 2000s, Harpole had participated directly or indirectly in the arrest of more than 2,000 marijuana law offenders.
After he retired, Harpole was elected to the Barstow City Council. With Proposition 64’s passage, Barstow like most of the other cities in San Bernardino County fell into a state of paralysis, stalling either deliberately or inadvertently in the face of the change in the law. By 2019, when the city got around to looking into updating its ordinances regarding both medical and recreational marijuana sales, Harpole was made chairman of an ad-hoc committee, which was to look at the ins and outs of allowing the cultivation, sale, distribution, and manufacturing of marijuana, cannabis or cannabis-based products in the city. Licensing of marijuana based operations, the committee determined, was to take place pursuant to a licensing or permitting regime, one that would entail requirements that such operations meet a set of criteria, be licensed as businesses within the city and be subject to a tax specifically levied on the growers of marijuana or the manufacturers and purveyors of cannabis or cannabis-based products. The bottom line was that the City of Barstow was going to make sure it got its cut of revenue to be made from the newfound tolerance of marijuana as an acceptable intoxicant. Harpole, who had spent the most productive years of his life as a crusader against marijuana, now had the opportunity to make sure his former employer, through whom he receives his $82,000 per year pension, brings in plenty of cannabis cash.
In April 2019, it became publicly known that Harpole was the architect of how at least 15 percent of the money from the sale of marijuana in Barstow would flow into the City of Barstow’s coffers. Overnight, Harpole had become the poster boy for hypocritical law enforcement officers ready to bust people at a moment’s notice for smoking a joint, while remaining simultaneously prepared to take in money from the sale of marijuana as long as it made its way into their pockets, the more the better.
It is the specter of Harpole, who never actually worked for the sheriff’s department but rather for Barstow PD, that is in part preventing the sheriff’s department from criminally charging those pursuing the enterprise of growing massive amounts of marijuana in the desert.
Indeed phenomenal numbers of plants are being germinated and grown, using both the desert sun and artificial lights.
In the face of California’s seismic cultural shift that was signaled by the passage of Proposition 64, San Bernardino County officials at virtually every level were stymied. The traditional stand they had uniformly, or almost uniformly, taken against the drug was compromised, and if they insisted on slamming the door on the would-be entrepreneurs looking to traffic in the substance now that it was legal, they ran a degree of risk. Still, the sheriff’s office in 2017, 2018, 2019, into 2020 and yet now is maintaining its traditional attitude which holds that the proliferation of cannabis runs contrary to an orderly community.
Only in Adelanto, where the political leadership was on the take and receiving sizable kickbacks from the marijuana entrepreneurs, did the sheriff’s department stand down. If the deep-pocketed cannabis industry moguls who were making large scale donations to the members of the city council had their operations intruded upon by the sheriff’s office, the political leadership in Adelanto could reverse the action a previous city council had taken in 2002, when the Adelanto Police Department was closed out and the sheriff’s department was contracted with to provide the city with law enforcement coverage. In order not to upset the pay-for-play deals in place in Adelanto, the sheriff’s department allowed, while the ruling coalition of Mayor Rich Kerr and councilmembers Jermaine Wright, John Woodard and later Councilwoman Joy Jeannette remained intact, virtually any cannabis-related undertaking within the city limits of Adelanto licensed or not alone.
Elsewhere, it was a different story.
Despite California’s passage of Proposition 64 and the enactment of the Adult Use of Marijuana Act, under federal law marijuana remains a Schedule 1 narcotic considered as dangerous as heroin and cocaine and subject to very stiff federal penalties.
Since 1999, the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department had been participating in and receiving federal money for the Domestic Cannabis Eradication/Suppression Program. Even in the aftermath of the voters’ 2016 passage of the Adult Use of Marijuana Act, Sheriff John McMahon, with the consent of the board of supervisors, applied for and continued to receive those grants, which he then used to offset some, though not all, of his department’s costs in going after marijuana cultivators.
Given the ground rules under which that effort has proceeded, some people, including ones who favor the anti-marijuana crusade and those opposed to it, have come to wonder if McMahon isn’t himself smoking copious quantities of the product his deputies have been seizing.
Indeed, there is an undeniably schizophrenic quality to the sheriff’s department’s effort.
The task force has been prodigiously effective in eradicating the crops it has found. Along the way, it has identified hundreds of people involved in those operations, from the owners of the property where the farms exist, to the farmers themselves, to the investors putting up the capital to give the farmers the equipment and wherewithal to set up the operations, to the workers at the farms to the lower level operatives who then harvest, cure, package and move the product to market or the various middlemen and their customers. Yet very few of those identified as participating in these operations have been arrested, let alone prosecuted. Those arrested have been rapidly released from custody, and not charged by the district attorney’s office with any offense relating to unlicensed marijuana cultivation. In the relatively rare instances where arrests have occurred, it has generally been for crimes unrelated to the cultivation or marketing of marijuana, criminal offenses that in the course of the task force’s operations came to their attention.
The San Bernardino County District Attorney’s Office, which has the authority to prosecute state law, is unwilling to prosecute those involved in marijuana cultivation, no matter how massive the operation, primarily because the Adult Use of Marijuana Act has so transformed the law with regard to marijuana. Where the growth of the drug is occurring, even without proper permits and licensing, the activity falls under the rubric of California civil law and the government code rather than the penal code, prosecutors contend. The district attorney’s office is doing nothing to interfere with the sheriff’s department’s operations; it is simply not assisting it in any follow-up with regard to those operations.
Curiously, even though it is using federal money to cover a portion of its costs in carrying out its energetic marijuana cultivation raids, the sheriff’s department either has not sent the casework pertaining to those raids to federal prosecutors or, if it has, the U.S. Attorney’s Office has not acted against the owners, operators or workers at those plantations.
Sheriff McMahon has not provided any sort of response to questions as to why he continues to devote a significant portion of his department’s resources to the marijuana eradication effort when doing so has resulted, over the course of more than four years, in so few prosecutions.
An issue is the ostensible versus actual success of the eradication effort. There is no doubt a substantial amount of marijuana has been seized and destroyed in the course of the department’s operations. Nevertheless, observers have a real sense that those whose activities have been foreclosed are the less sophisticated domestic cultivators and a statistical cross section of the massive number of foreign marijuana farm operators. Both statistical analysis of available information on the operations and anecdotal accounts indicate that American citizens who have a long time or in-depth understanding of the county, its institutions and its lay of the land, have been able, for the most part, to fly well under the radar of the sheriff’s department and its marijuana eradication task force. By removing their operations to areas where detection is difficult or impossible and by eliminating a reliance on traditional suppliers of the necessities of such operations such as electrical or water utilities, which will extend to law enforcement access to information on customer usage patterns, the more sophisticated operators carry out their cultivation without detection or even suspicion. It would appear that all, or most, of these more sophisticated operators are Americans or Canadians, with a very few being Mexican Nationals. A large number of the wave of unlicensed marijuana farm operators in San Bernardino County are Mexicans or Asians
Relying on the sheer expansiveness of 20,105-square mile San Bernardino County, these less sophisticated operators have set up enterprises indoors all over the county and in what are seemingly out-of-the-way places outdoors most frequently in the desert and mountains. The sheriff’s department, which has helicopters outfitted with visual scanners that employ spectrophotometers that can immediately detect the highly distinct color of even a single marijuana plant let alone a greenhouse packed with them, has had substantial success in finding cultivation operations. At present there are an estimated 2,500 to 3,000 marijuana cultivation operations in San Bernardino County set up by Asians alone. Given these raw numbers, over the last two years, the vast majority of those associated with marijuana cultivation operations caught by the sheriff’s department have been Asians, virtually none of whom have been naturalized.
Thus, practically speaking, the trend in San Bernardino County is that most unlicensed marijuana cultivation operations are ones being carried out by Asians relatively recently arrived in America.
Extrapolating on available data, the most profitable marijuana cultivation operations appear to be ones designed and operated by veterans of the illicit marijuana trade whose operations preexisted the advent of the Adult Use of Marijuana Act.
The sheriff’s department has not relented in its marijuana eradication effort in 2021.
On January 6 at 8:30 a.m., the sheriff’s Marijuana Enforcement Team served a search warrant in the 2600 block of Parkdale Road in Adelanto, where they found 19,998 marijuana plants along with 186 pounds of harvested and partially cured marijuana. Cited were Shihua Want, 70, of Adelanto; Shi Xin Jiang, 66, of Adelanto; Liyon Dong, 36, of Adelanto; Xin Zheng Guan, 38, of Adelanto; Mei Jin You, 49, of Adelanto; Chun Tao Lu, 41, of Adelanto; Xiaoqun Yu, 53, of Adelanto; Jian Feng Yu, 47, of Adelanto; Wan Huang Wu, 42, of Adelanto; Xing Qiang Li, 45, of Adelanto; Xihong Huang, 26, of Adelanto; and Guang Yi, 22, of El Monte.
On January 7, 2021, the task force conducted two raids, one in Lucerne Valley and one in Johnson Valley in which 1,903 marijuana plants and 306.5 pounds of harvested marijuana were seized on January 27. Arrested in conjunction with those cultivation operations were Basemen Hernandez-Cruz, 30, of Oxnard, and his brother, Gerardo Hernandez-Cruz, 21, of Santa Maria. They have since been released.
On February 2, a team of deputies and investigators, in possession of a search warrant and in response to reports that a massive unlicensed and illicit marijuana cultivation operation was in place on property in El Mirage, swooped onto the site 12.5 miles northwest of Adelanto. They found 12 people on or immediately proximate to the property, which featured greenhouses in which 18,884 plants were growing.
After a brief investigation into the circumstance, five of the dozen people at the site were arrested – Chen Guo Jin, 48, of Sanford, Florida; Johnny Chan, 39, of Los Angeles; Zhi Fei Qian, 57, of Apple Valley; Kefei Wang, 34, of Concord, California; and Zhen Williamson, 52, of Denham Springs, Louisiana.
All five were released shortly thereafter
With the progression of the task force’s focus moving eastward, by summer it is likely to encounter at least some of the more sophisticated and lucrative cultivation efforts, ones which are proximate to the Colorado River and thus make use of the plentiful water it provides. Those operations also utilize the sun as a light source during the day, augmented by artificial light at night to provide a relatively short four-month growing cycle for the plants.
The challenge the operators of these very sophisticated farms are to soon face will consist of being able to continue to camouflage the operations while being subjected to the extremely intense scrutiny the task force will bring to bear.
California law allows adults to engage in the growing of up to six marijuana plants. Authorities have in many cases chosen to look the other way with regard to gardens involving a dozen or more plantings.
The operations interesting the sheriff’s task force have been boldly large, in some cases rivaling or exceeding the size of industrial cannabis nurseries. Regulations layered into the law further disallow in most jurisdictions, as in the case of San Bernardino County, the growing of marijuana outdoors. Commercial cultivation of cannabis must take place indoors under such regulations. Moreover, such operations require a permit and licensing.
–Mark Gutglueck