Just how exacting an employer in California can be in setting the standards for its employees will be determined when a lawsuit filed Thursday by the State of California’s Civil Rights Department against the Ralphs grocery store chain goes to trial.
In that suit, the California Civil Rights Department maintains that Ralphs corporate executives went too far when it included questions about job candidates’ criminal histories on the company’s job applications and then utilized admissions of what the civil rights division deems “minor offenses” as the basis for screening out those would-be employees.
The lawsuit is poised to re-raise questions and resurrect controversy that accompanied the passage of the Fair Chance Act, Assembly Bill 1008, passed into law by the California Legislature and signed into law by then-Governor Jerry Brown in 2017.
The Fair Chance Act, authored by Assembly Member Kevin McCarty (D-Sacramento), was intended to to ensure that California residents with criminal convictions who are seeking employment are fairly considered for jobs. When it went into effect on January 1, 2018, it prohibited most California employers from inquiring about a job applicant’s criminal history as part of a job application and it further disallowed businesses from conducting background check on applicants until after a job offer was made to that specific individual.
An exception existed in the law if under another law or governmental regulation the employer was required to run a background check for the specific job applied for. The larges number of jobs given such specific exceptions were one in finance or requiring coordination with governmental agencies. In considering an applicant’s criminal history, employers are required, under the Fair Chance Act, to take into account various factors such as the nature and gravity of the offense, the time that passed since the offense or completion of the sentence, and the nature of the job sought.
There was, among certain industries or sectors, some reservation about the new law in 2018 and the governmental intrusion into the workplace. It was pointed out that for some companies, strict hiring standards had proven to be a critical element of their formula for success, that the standards had existed for a considerable length of time, indeed, decades in some cases; that the standards were drawn from governmental practices and standards, as the convictions themselves were imposed by the state government in the form of its penal code, passed by the legislature, and convictions handed down by its courts.
Under the law, an employer could make a “conditional offer” of employment and then carry out a background check, but only with the employee’s written permission. A legitimate question then applied as to whether the employer could terminate the employee for refusing to submit to the background check.
Under the act, employers cannot require an applicant to provide a specific type of evidence demonstrating rehabilitation, though applicants are free to provide evidence of rehabilitation or mitigating circumstances voluntarily at any time during the hiring process, extending to their conduct during incarceration, employment history since the conviction or sentence completion, community service, and other rehabilitative efforts. Applicants are also at liberty to disclose whether trauma, domestic or dating violence, sexual assault, stalking, human trafficking, duress, or other similar factors contributed to the offense or conduct. Further, applicants can identify if a disability, such as a past drug addiction or mental impairment, contributed to the offense or conduct. The applicant can also inform the prospective employer whether the likelihood of harm arising from similar conduct could be sufficiently diminished or eliminated by a reasonable accommodation made by the employer or whether the disability has been mitigated or eliminated by treatment. Employers cannot refuse to accept any evidence provided by the applicant. The act calls upon potential employers to “carefully evaluate” such information and give applicants a fair chance to demonstrate their qualifications and readiness for the role they are applying to assume.
Critics of the law asserted that employers should reasonably be allowed to know whether those they are to employ have been rehabilitated.
Employers with fewer than five employees were not subject to the Fair Chance Act.
Since 2018, the California Civil Rights Department has been inundated with thousands of complaints from job applicants who said they were subjected to unlawful questions. The department launched more that 300 investigations into alleged discrimination in which employers discriminated against potential employees based on their criminal history. In something like 70 of those, settlements were obtained.
Ralphs, which employs roughly 25,000 at its 185 stores and warehouses in California, was clearly subject to the law, according to the State of California. No settlement was reached with the company and the state filed what is the first lawsuit based on the act against it.
According to the lawsuit, Ralphs employment applicants were provided with a application in which they were asked to disclose their criminal history but told doing so was not required. Nevertheless, there were instructions relating to completing the portion of the application with instructions that were so involved the applicants were, essentially, fooled into responding or inveigled into responding against their will.
According to the suit, “The instructions provide detailed, superfluous instructions concerning how to report convictions, after telling applicants that they do not need to answer the question. Additionally, by suggesting specific convictions that should not be reported in California, the instructions necessarily suggest that other convictions should be reported.”
Between 2018 and 2022, more than 70 percent of Ralph’s applicants in California answered the questions relating to criminal history, according to the suit.
The grounds then used for denying employment were based on issues that had, or should have had, no bearing on the fitness of the applicants for the positions they wanted to work, according to the State of California Civil Rights Department. should Candidates “lost their job offers based on convictions for a single misdemeanor count of excessive noise,” according to the department. “Other applicants who had convictions from other states for simple cannabis possession were also disqualified.”
Ralphs uses an online application methodology that involves an electronic application which entails a format involving multiple question including those related to criminal history. It uses an evaluative algorithm that bypasses human or personalized assessment, selecting and/or rejecting applicants merely on a standardized scoring basis, which the California Civil Rights Division maintains is illegal.
The company further failed to make adequate disclosure to rejected applicants of its reason for denying them employment.
More than three out of four of those job applicants with Ralphs who had the job offers they had previously been extended rescinded were not given an opportunity or the means to contact the company to appeal the decision, as required under the Fair Chance Act. Those given contact information soon learned that the phone number they were provided terminated at a fax machine, according to the lawsuit.
Ralphs has done nothing to undo its denial of employment to hundreds of applicants on account of their di minimus and stale criminal histories, which under the law does not stand as sufficient reason to deny them employment, according to the lawsuit.
“These types of convictions, and hundreds more like them, do not bear any direct and adverse relationship with the duties of any job at a grocery store, including the grocery clerk positions that are the vast majority of the positions Ralphs denied on the basis of conviction history,” the lawsuit states.
“They were not legitimate grounds for a decision by Ralphs to withdraw a conditional offer that had already been made based on the applicant’s application and interview.”
Multiple candidates allegedly lost job offers based on convictions for a single misdemeanor count of excessive noise. Others who had convictions for simple cannabis possession in states where it remains illegal were also disqualified, according to the suit.
Ralphs has not made any statement in reaction to the lawsuit. That the Department of Civil Rights was moved to file suit rather than come to a settlement might be interpreted as an indication the company will opt to go to court and perhaps argue that it is within its rights to not want to employ pot smokers or those who have demonstrated themselves as discourteous enough toward their neighbors or fellow citizens as to disturb their tranquility. It is anticipated that Ralphs will, if it goes to court to defend against the suit, to employ whatever protocols or algorithms it has developed in conjunction with its business model in evaluating applicants for their future employment potential.
The lawsuit seeks from Ralphs monetary damages for applicants who were denied employment or lost hiring opportunities because of Ralphs’ policy. The department als wants Ralphs to be enjoined hereinafter to comply with the Fair Chance Act.
“The Fair Chance Act is about giving every Californian an opportunity to thrive,” said Civil Rights Department Director Kevin Kish. “We can’t expect people to magically gain the economic and housing stability needed to reintegrate into their communities and stay out of the criminal legal system without a fair chance at steady employment, particularly when the job has nothing to do with a past offense.”

Civil liberties advocates in San Bernardino County are on their toes, acutely regardful of how local government officials might be willing to use California Governor Newsom’s promotion of aggressive use of conservatorship authority to round up, narcotize and institutionalize those whose mental state can in any way be questioned might be used to silence local government critics.
According to the governor’s office, conservatorships are a tool in the government’s panoply to be used in reducing the number of homeless in the state. Newsom encouraged the legislature to expand such authority, whereupon State Senator Susan Talamantes Eggman (D-Stockton) obliged him with Senate Bill 43, which allows local authorities to appoint a conservator for anyone deemed to be “experiencing a serious mental illness or severe substance use disorder and most at-risk of harm to themselves.” The threshold for taking such action is not high. If two or more governmental officials concur that someone falls into such a category, the individual can be apprehended, handcuffed until placed into a straitjacket and then kept straitjacketed until he or she has been administered anti-psychotic medication. Individuals refusing to take the medication prescribed for them willingly can be forcibly drugged.
Five medications likely to be prescribed to the county’s homeless are old school Thorazine; Serioquel, also known as Quetiapine; Risperidone, also known as Risperdol; Haldol, also known as Haloperidol; and Stelazine. Continue reading →

Almost 1,800 of the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department’s 2,007 deputies have now been outfitted with body-worn cameras.
Within the next three months, all of the department’s deputies working in the field and the department’s multiple detention facilities will be wired up for real time sound and video. That electronic record of their action from their perspective will be permanently uploaded and recorded to a data bank accessible to the department.
The modernization comes after a series of delay, that were both unanticipated and imposed by the department’s command echelon. Just over a decade ago, two of San Bernardino County’s municipal law enforcement agencies – the Rialto Police Department and the Chino Police Department – made body cameras standard gear for their police officers. The San Bernardino and Fontana departments purchased and deployed them for their officers in 2016. In the years since, a number of other police departments in San Bernardino County as well as throughout Southern California have acquired the devices and put them into routine use. At present, every sheriff’s department in Southern California is utilizing the cameras, which in addition to being capable of video recording can also pick up sound out to a distance of 33 to 40 feet.
The cameras, worn on the uniforms, belts or eyeglasses of the officers, are distinct from vehicle cameras, which have been in vogue with many police departments for some two decades. The sheriff’s department operates a number of helicopters, most of which have been able to capture video footage for more than three decades. Continue reading →

SUMMONS
In the matter of ZHICONG KONG, Plaintiff
vs.
ZIMENG LIU, Defendant
Case No. CV0023644
Department Number 2
In the Sixth Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada in and for the County of Humboldt
To: ZIMENG LIU
The State of Nevada sends greeting to the above-named defendant:
You are hereby SUMMONED and required to serve upon the plaintiff, ZHICONG KONG, whose address is 400 Brush Street, Unit 310, Las Vegas, NV 89107, an Answer TO THE COMPLAINT which is herewith served upon you, within 21 days after service of this Summons upon you, exclusive of the day of service.
In addition, you must file with the Clerk of this Court, the address for which is shown below, a formal written answer to the complaint, along with the appropriate filing fees, in accordance with the rules of the Court. If you fail to do so, judgement by default will be taken against you for the relief demanded in the Complaint. This action is brought to recover a judgment dissolving the contract of marriage exiting between you and the Plaintiff.
Date: 10/26/2023
Tami Rae Spero, Clerk of the Court
Humboldt County Courthouse
50 West 5th Street
Winnemucca, NV 89445
(775) 623-6343
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel December 1, 8, 15 & 22, 2023.

NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF: CHARLES RICHARD LLOYD
CASE NO.  PROVA2300306
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of CHARLES RICHARD LLOYD has been filed by ANSEL HALL in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION REQUESTS the decedent’s will and codicils, if any, be admitted to probate. The will and any codicils are available for examination in the file kept by the court.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that ANSEL HALL be appointed as personal representative to administer the estate of the decedent.
THE PETITION REQUESTS the decedent’s will and codicils, if any, be admitted to probate. The will and any codicils are available for examination in the file kept by the court.
THE PETITION requests authority to administer the estate under the Independent Administration of Estates Act. (This authority will allow the personal representative to take many actions without obtaining court approval. Before taking certain very important actions, however, the personal representative will be required to give notice to interested persons unless they have waived notice or consented to the proposed action.) The independent administration authority will be granted unless an interested person files an objection to the petition and shows good cause why the court should not grant the authority.
A hearing on the petition will be held January 23, 2024 at 9:30 a.m. at
San Bernardino County Superior Court Fontana District
Department F3 – Fontana
17780 Arrow Boulevard
Fontana, CA 92335
Filed: DECEMBER 6, 2023
Taylor McKernan, Deputy Court Clerk.
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 Ansel Hall:
Jeffrey R. Loew, Esquire
SBN 216808
Loew Law Group, A Professional Corporation
1650 Borel Place, Suite 123
San Mateo, CA 94402
Phone (650) 397-8700
jloew@loewlawgroup.com
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on December 8, 15 & 22, 2023.

NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF: FRANK A. VIRAMONTES
CASE NO.  PROVA2300218
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of FRANK A. VIRAMONTES has been filed by PHILIP A. VIRAMONTES in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION REQUESTS the decedent’s will and codicils, if any, be admitted to probate. The will and any codicils are available for examination in the file kept by the court.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that PHILIP A. VIRAMONTES be appointed as personal representative to administer the estate of the decedent.
THE PETITION REQUESTS the decedent’s will and codicils, if any, be admitted to probate. The will and any codicils are available for examination in the file kept by the court.
THE PETITION requests authority to administer the estate under the Independent Administration of Estates Act. (This authority will allow the personal representative to take many actions without obtaining court approval. Before taking certain very important actions, however, the personal representative will be required to give notice to interested persons unless they have waived notice or consented to the proposed action.) The independent administration authority will be granted unless an interested person files an objection to the petition and shows good cause why the court should not grant the authority.
A hearing on the petition will be held December 13, 2023 at 9:00 a.m. at
San Bernardino County Superior Court Fontana District
Department F1 – Fontana
17780 Arrow Boulevard
Fontana, CA 92335
Filed: OCTOBER 25, 2023
DiAnna Verdugo, Deputy Court Clerk.
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 Philip A. Viramontes
Tyler H. Brown
SBN 259620
BROWN & BROWN
Attorneys at Law
10681 Foothill Boulevard, Suite 490
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
(909) 982-5086
tylerbrown@brownandbrownllp.com
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on December 8, 15, 22 & 29, 2023.

FBN 20230012053
The following entity is doing business primarily in San Bernardino County as
ATKINSONS’ 3045 S. ARCHIBALD H238 ONTARIO, CA 91761: DAMION K. ATKINSON 3045 S. ARCHIBALD H/238 ONTARIO, CA 91761
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL.
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: 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/ DAMION K ATKINSON
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 12/06/2023
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 J7550
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on December 8, 15, 22 & 29, 2023.

FBN 20230011975
The following entity is doing business primarily in San Bernardino County as
UNLIMITED ME CONSULTING GROUP 9459 PEACH AVENUE HESPERIA, CA 92345: MARVIN ESPINOZA 9459 PEACH AVENUE HESPERIA, CA 92345
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/ MARVIN ESPINOZA, Principal Consultant
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 12/04/2023
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 J5842
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on December 8, 15, 22 & 29, 2023.

FBN 20230011371
The following entity is doing business primarily in San Bernardino County as
LUCHOS PERUVIAN RESTAURANT 9047 ARROW RTE 190 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730: LUIS E DE LA CRUZ 9047 ARROW RTE 190 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730
The business is conducted by: AN INDIVIDUAL.
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: January 9, 2018.
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/ LUIS E. DE LA CRUZ, Owner
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 11/14/2023
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 J4019
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on December 8, 15, 22 & 29, 2023.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR CHANGE OF NAME CASE
NUMBER CIVSM2327691
TO ALL INTERESTED PERSONS: Petitioner: Brianna R. Rojas filed with this court for a decree changing names as follows:
Andre Alexander Hernandez to Andre Alexander Hernandez Melendrez 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: 01/16/2024
Time: 08:30 AM
Department: S32
The address of the court is Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino San Bernardino District-Civil Division 247 West Third Street, San Bernardino, CA 92415 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this order be published in the SBCS ? Ontario in San Bernardino County California, once a week for four successive weeks prior to the date set for hearing of the petition.
Dated: 11/15/2023
Judge of the Superior Court: Gilbert G. Ochoa
Published in the SBCS Ontario on 12/08/2023, 12/15/2023, 12/22/2023, 12/29/2023

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR CHANGE OF NAME CASE
NUMBER CIVSB2328952
TO ALL INTERESTED PERSONS: Petitioner: Milton Alfredo Gonzalez filed with this court for a decree changing names as follows:
Milton Alfredo Gonzalez to Milton Alfredo Hidalgo
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: 01/30/2024
Time: 08:30 AM
Department: S26
The address of the court is Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino San Bernardino District-Civil Division 247 West Third Street, San Bernardino, CA 92415 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this order be published in the SBCS ? Ontario in San Bernardino County California, once a week for four successive weeks prior to the date set for hearing of the petition.
Dated: 12/01/2023
Judge of the Superior Court: Gilbert G. Ochoa
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel Ontario on 12/15/2023, 12/22/2023, 12/29/2023, 01/05/2024

FBN 20230012239
The following entity is doing business primarily in San Bernardino County as
VINEYARD INSURANCE SERVICES 22617 HIGHWAY 18 APPLE VALLEY, CA 92307: GOLDEN STATE INSURANCE SERVICES, INC. 22617 HIGHWAY 18 APPLE VALLEY, CA 92307
Mailing Address: P.O. BOX 3157 APPLE VALLEY, CA 91307.
The business is conducted by: A CORPORATION.
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: DECEMBER 4, 2004.
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/ AMBER SCHWING
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 12/13/2023
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 J3256
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on December 15, 22 & 29, 2023 and January 5, 2024.

NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF: WILLIAM ALLAN ARNOLD
CASE NO. PROVA 2300329
To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may otherwise be interested in the will or estate, or both of WILLIAM ALLAN ARNOLD
A PETITION FOR PROBATE has been filed by ROBERT W. ARNOLD in the Superior Court of California, County of SAN BERNARDINO.
THE PETITION FOR PROBATE requests that ROBERT W. ARNOLD be appointed as personal representatives to administer the estate of the decedent.
THE PETITION requests authority to administer the estate under the Independent Administration of Estates Act. (This authority will allow the personal representative to take many actions without obtaining court approval. Before taking certain very important actions, however, the personal representative will be required to give notice to interested persons unless they have waived notice or consented to the proposed action.) The independent administration authority will be granted unless an interested person files an objection to the petition and shows good cause why the court should not grant the authority.
A hearing on the petition will be held in Dept. F-1 at 9:00 a.m. on January 31, 2024
San Bernardino County Superior Court Fontana District
Department F1 – Fontana
17780 Arrow Boulevard
Fontana, CA 92335
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 Robert W. Arnold:
ANTONIETTE JAUREGUI (SB 192624)
1894 S. COMMERCENTER WEST, SUITE 108
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92408
Telephone No: (909) 890-2350
Fax No: (909) 890-0106
ajprobate@gmail.com
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on December 22 & 29, 2023 and January 5, 2024.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR CHANGE OF NAME
CASE NUMBER CIVSB 2329923
TO ALL INTERESTED PERSONS: Petitioner KASSIDY NICOLE WILLIAMS filed with this court for a decree changing names as follows:
KASSIDY NICOLE WILLIAMS to KASSIDY NICOLE BROWN-WILLIAMS
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: 2/1/2024
Time: 08:30 AM
Department: S23
The address of the court is Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino San Bernardino District-Civil Division 247 West 3rd Street, San Bernardino, CA 92415-0210
To appear remotely, check in advance of the hearing for information about how to do so on the court’s website. To find your court’s website, go to www.courts.ca.gov/find-my-court.htm
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: December 21, 2023
Sylvia Guajardo, Deputy Clerk of the Court
Gilbert Ochoa, Judge of the Superior Court
ALICIA BROWN, on behalf of her minor child
12505 MELODY DRIVE
RANCHO Cucamonga, CA 91739
Telephone No: (909) 646-0309
alicianicole309@gmail.com
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on December 22 & 29, 2023 and January 5 & 12, 2024.

FBN 20230012304 ABANDONMENT OF A FICTICIOUS BUSINES NAME
The following person was doing business primarily in San Bernardino County as: GAMESTOP 4994 3935 GRAND AVENUE, SUITE C1 CHINO, CA 91710: GAMESTOP, INC 625 WESTPORT PARKWAY GRAPEVINE, TX 76051
Mailing Address: 625 WESTPORT PARKWAY GRAPEVINE, TX 76051
The business was conducted by: A CORPORATION registered with the STATE OF MINNESOTA under the number 1969245.
The date of the current filing for this business was 11/16/2020. The original file number was FBN20200010532.
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: AUGUST 7, 2003
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/ MARK ROBINSON, Secretary
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: DECEMBER 14, 2023
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 J3256
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on December 22 & 29, 2023 and January 5 & 12, 2024.

FBN 20230012302
The following entity is doing business primarily in San Bernardino County as
GAMESTOP #1994 3817 GRAND AVE. SUITE A CHINO, CA 91710: GAMESTOP, INC. 625 WESTPORT PARKWAY GRAPEVINE, TX 76051
Mailing Address: 625 WESTPORT PARKWAY GRAPEVINE, TX 76051
The business is conducted by: A CORPORATION registered with the State of Minnesota under the number 1969245.
The registrant commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on: August 7, 2003.
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/ MARK ROBINSON, Secretary
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 12/14/2023
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 J3256
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on December 22 & 29, 2023 and January 5 & 12, 2024.

FBN 20230012515
The following entity is doing business primarily in San Bernardino County as
PAPR FOUNDATION 454 N. ARROWHEAD AVENUE 2ND FLOOR SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92401: PAPR FOUNDATION 454 N. ARROWHEAD AVENUE 2ND FLOOR SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92401
The business is conducted by: A CORPORATION registered with the State of CALIFORNIA under the number 5366875.
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/ KAREN J. SHOVEY, Secretary
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 12/19/2023
I hereby certify that this copy is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office San Bernardino County Clerk By:/Deputy J2523
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on December 22 & 29, 2023 and January 5 & 12, 2024.

FBN 20230012624
The following entity is doing business primarily in San Bernardino County as
SIX POINT STAR TRANSPORT 17450 ARROW BLVD. FONTANA, CA 92335: CARRIE C SANDOVAL 17450 ARROW BLVD. FONTANA, CA 9233
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/ CARRIE C SANDOVAL
Statement filed with the County Clerk of San Bernardino on: 12/21/2023
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 J4019
Notice-This fictitious name statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the county clerk. A new fictitious business name statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (see Section 14400 et seq., Business and Professions Code).
Published in the San Bernardino County Sentinel on December 22 & 29, 2023 and January 5 & 12, 2024.

The SBC Sentinel

By Mark Gutglueck
Seven Enamorados and the political clique’s namesake founder were swept up in a predawn raid Thursday morning in a precisely choreographed operation by the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department that was staged in five Southern California cities, including across the county line to include two locations in Los Angeles.
The arrests, the wealth of information obtained in a ten-week-long investigation involving at least seven police agencies leading up to them and the penetration of the Enamorados by informants or undercover operatives sets up what promises to be a far-reaching clash of public perception with regard to the organization and whether it represents, as law enforcement maintains, a criminal enterprise or if the description of those involved as social and political activists is more apt.
The central figure in the Enamorados as well as the bevy of arrests effectuated on December 14 is Edin Alex Enamorado. An admitted former “gangbanger” and convicted felon originally from Cudahy, the now-36-year-old Enamorado says that several years ago he recognized the error of his earlier choices and has now resolved to eradicate the social ills of racism and poverty that are the tools of the oppressors who demean, exploit and ultimately criminalize entire segments of society. He promotes himself, and his supporters celebrate him, as the champion of the underdog, which in the Greater Los Angeles Metropolitan area and Southern California in which he plies the lion’s share of his activism, primarily means poor Latinos and African Americans, but most particularly the immigrant community, composed of largely unskilled individuals few of whom speak English and are struggling economically to find a place in the region’s workforce. He and his associates in the past have advocated upon the behalf of Mexicanos or what is referred to as “La Raza” or simply “raza,” meaning Hispanics.
Most recently, Enamorado and, by extension, his legion of Enamorados have taken up the cause of street vendors, sometimes referred to as sidewalk vendors, meaning those with pushcarts, tables, makeshift platforms, more elaborate temporary venues, rolling kitchens or vehicles which sell items or merchandise, often involving food.
That issue is a complicated and nuanced one. Continue reading →