Hiramanek v. Hiramanek CA6

── Hiramanek v. Hiramanek CA6 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: June 03, 2026 Category: General Filed 6/2/26 Hiramanek v. Hiramanek CA6 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT RODA HIRAMANEK, H050904 (Santa Clara County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. 2015CV278288) v. ORDER MODIFYING OPINION AND DENYING REHEARING ADIL HIRAMANEK, NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT Defendant and Appellant. THE COURT: The petition for rehearing is denied. On the court’s own motion, the opinion filed herein on May 20, 2026, is ordered modified as follows: 1. In the caption, “RODA HIRAMENEK” shall be changed to “RODA HIRAMANEK.” 2. In the caption, “Super. Ct. No. 2015CV27822” shall be changed to “Super. Ct. No. 2015CV278288.” 3. On page 10, the final two sentences of the first full paragraph are deleted and replaced with the following: Moreover, as we noted in appeal No. H049880, in early 2021, when Lumley filed a petition for authorization to administer the estate of Mr. Hiramanek’s mother, in opposing the petition he failed to file a petition for either administration of the estate or appointment as her personal representative. (Hiramanek v. Estate of Roda Hiramanek, supra, H049880, p. 2.) As a consequence, Mr. Hiramanek’s motion to substitute was without merit and, if considered, should have been denied. There is no change in judgment.  ___________________________ BROMBERG, J. ___________________________ GREENWOOD, P. J. ___________________________ DANNER, J. 2 Filed 5/20/26 Hiramanek v. Hiramanek CA6 (unmodified opinion) NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT RODA HIRAMANEK, H050904 (Santa Clara County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. 2015CV27822) v. ADIL HIRAMANEK, Defendant and Appellant. This case was commenced in 2015 when Roda Hiramanek sued her son Adil Hiramanek, Mr. Hiramanek’s wife, and his wife’s mother. In January 2020, Roda Hiramanek died. Approximately a year later in January 2021, the trial court dismissed her claims for failure to bring them to trial within five years. In February 2023 the court denied a motion brought by Mr. Hiramanek to strike the dismissal order. In March 2023, Mr. Hiramanek filed a notice of appeal from the denial of his motion to strike. Because Mr. Hiramanek has been designated as a vexatious litigant, this court issued an order to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed, among other things, for lack of authority to continue his deceased mother’s claims. However, Mr. Hiramanek represented that he was proceeding as both an aggrieved defendant and on behalf of his mother’s estate, and the order to show cause was discharged. In September 2025, Mr. Hiramanek filed an opening brief, arguing, among other things, that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to proceed against his mother after her death. Both respondents and the appointed personal representative of his mother’s estate declined to file a brief in response. After reviewing Mr. Hiramanek’s brief, the court issued a second o