By Quintella Griffin, Legal Writer

Opinion and documentary analysis | Part 2 of 2

A tentative ruling found that Oakland property occupant Zakiya Jendayi had not received notice before a judge ordered its transfer into an estate.

The ruling was not final. Attention shifted to the assigned judge.

The estate’s special administrator, Phillip Campbell, invoked California Code of Civil Procedure Section 170.6 to disqualify Judge Stephanie Sato. The trial court granted the challenge Sept. 9, 2026.

Five days later, Campbell requested reassignment specifically to Judge Sandra Bean, who had signed the property order Jendayi sought to overturn.

The sequence raises questions about procedural fairness.

A Challenge After an Unfavorable Ruling

Sato’s Sept. 8 tentative ruling concluded that California’s notice requirement protected Jendayi as an occupant, regardless of whether Jendayi held a valid ownership interest.

Her proposed decision would have vacated Bean’s Oct. 8, 2025, order.

Section 170.6 permits challenges under certain circumstances. Whether Campbell’s challenge was timely was disputed.

On Sept. 14, Campbell sought Bean’s reassignment, citing her familiarity with related trust litigation, judicial economy and consistency. Jendayi opposed the request the following day.

The timing invites serious public scrutiny but does not establish misconduct.

The Appellate Court Intervenes

In Kaiser Foundation Hospitals v. Superior Court (1987), a California appellate court examined the danger of allowing litigants to learn a judge’s likely decision before seeking disqualification.

The decision also recognized that changed assignments and insufficient notice can affect when a challenge is permissible.

On Sept. 17, 2026, the First District Court of Appeal stayed the order granting Campbell’s challenge and requested briefing addressing Kaiser.

That intervention did not vacate Bean’s property order, restore the invalidated trust or conclusively decide whether Campbell’s challenge was improper.

It did place the reassignment dispute under appellate review.

Questions in the Docket

Two versions of the court docket present another unresolved issue.

A printout preserved through Sept. 15 lacked reassignment entries that appeared in a later version. The later docket listed reassignment to Bean and a clerk’s notice under Sept. 9.

The difference warrants an explanation of when the entries were created, entered and made publicly accessible.

It does not establish deliberate backdating.

Accountability Beyond an Order

Judges generally enjoy immunity from damages claims arising from judicial acts, even when serious error is alleged. That protection does not make their decisions immune from review.

Appellate courts can correct legal errors; California’s Commission on Judicial Performance can investigate misconduct but cannot reverse judgments.

For Jendayi, the central concern remains practical: How much litigation must an occupant undertake to enforce a notice requirement intended to protect participation before property rights are adjudicated?

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. underscores the importance of meaningful notice and an opportunity to object.

The record establishes contested filings, a tentative ruling and appellate intervention, not anyone’s private motives.

The public deserves a transparent, documented explanation of this consequential judicial process.

A judge’s signature should resolve a lawful dispute, not silence legitimate questions about how the decision was reached.

The case is Estate of Laura Dean Head, Alameda County Superior Court case RP20066047. Records are available through the court’s eCourt Public Portal.

Post News Group

Posts by Post News Group

A proposed mixed-use development at 338 Carlson Blvd. could bring hundreds of homes and support services for military veterans to South Richmond.

Led by the Richmond-based Veterans Resource Program in partnership with Eagle Environmental Construction & Development, the proposal covers an approximately 2.3-acre property the nonprofit acquired in 2018.

The proposal features a multi-building residential development with various apartment sizes, though city documents and developer materials cite conflicting totals ranging from 226 to 268 units.

The proposal also includes approximately 40,000 square feet of commercial and retail space, about 200 parking spaces, and an entrepreneurial training and job-development component intended to connect veterans with economic and workforce opportunities.

According to the development team’s presentation, the project has an estimated total cost of nearly $158 million. The presentation outlines five phases encompassing entitlement and construction documents, community outreach, soil remediation and utility work, podium and building construction, solar technology integration, and interior buildouts.

Founded in 2011, the Veterans Resource Program provides housing assistance and other services to veterans, including those experiencing homelessness or transitioning from incarceration.

The proposal aims to advance Richmond’s affordable housing goals while connecting veterans with housing and supportive services. Details of affordability and veteran eligibility remain to be clarified.

The Richmond City Council was scheduled to receive an informational presentation on the project at its Oct. 6 meeting, following a continuance from Sept. 22. The item does not seek project approval or city funding. Any future request for city financial assistance or other public resources would require separate consideration and approval.

Post News Group

Posts by Post News Group

By Tanya Dennis

Last Thursday, Zakiya Jendayi parked on the side of the René C. Davidson Courthouse in Oakland to file an emergency stay request in what Jendayi asserts was the “legal” theft of her home of 13 years by a court administrator in her ongoing battle for her rightful inheritance in a probate battle.

But before she could fully emerge from the car at 12th and Oak streets, she was arrested by Alameda County Sheriffs for disobeying a court order and obstruction.

According to observers who have read the transcripts, the Hamlin v. Jendayi case, now in its sixth year, has resulted in what they describe as a gross miscarriage of justice.

Judge Sandra K. Bean ordered a legally inherited home to be taken from beneficiary Jendayi, citing “undue influence,” and gave it to Court Administrator Phillip Campbell, who Jendayi believes will quickly sell the house and pay himself more than $600,000 in court fees. The disinherited sisters will get the remainder of the proceeds of the sale.

Dr. Laura Dean Head named Jendayi as the beneficiary and executor over her estate after Jendayi took care of her during the last months of her life. Head’s disinherited sisters, Della Hamlin and Helaine Head, challenged the validity of Head’s will and trust, despite not being able to recognize Head in a photo during the trial, and Della stating she hadn’t spoken to her sister since 1997 or 1998 and would not have taken care of her during her hospice.

The appellate court upheld Bean’s ruling, which Jendayi asserts was based on a failure to fully consider the transcripts. “They never read the transcripts because if they had, they would have seen the truth,” Jendayi said.

Accompanied by Alameda Couty Sheriff’s Department deputies, Campbell arrived unannounced at Jendayi’s home on Oct. 1 – at the same time Jendayi was being arrested – to change the locks, board up the windows, and place a fence around the property.

Neither Jendayi, nor her supporters who had been in touch with Alameda County leadership and the Sheriff’s Department and been given the impression that nothing would happen without warning had been told Campbell was coming.

“I went to the courthouse to file an emergency stay document, and while getting out of the car, a sheriff immediately approached me and put handcuffs on me before I could stand up,” Jendayi said in recounting the events of Oct. 1. “I asked him if he had a warrant. He said ‘yes,’ and seven other officers immediately approached and surrounded me, with an additional three sheriffs standing back observing.

“I asked why it was necessary to have 10 officers to arrest me. They would not answer. I asked if the sergeant was there and asked if I could speak to him, but the sergeant refused to approach while another officer started taunting me over and over, stating, ‘I was at your house. I was at your house when you refused to surrender. We got you now.’

“The officer put the handcuffs on tight. I asked him to please loosen them. He refused and said they weren’t too tight. Then a Black, female deputy named Lewis, came over and asked him to loosen the handcuffs. Three times the white male officers were overly aggressive with me, and each time Deputy Lewis would step up and they would fall back. They said I was under arrest for refusing to surrender the house on Aug. 25.

“I asked them if I could file my paperwork, and they said, ‘No.’ Several officers asked me if I was on drugs. I felt like my life was in danger. I asked to speak to Deputy Lewis, and she came. I said, ‘Please tell my mother and Joyce Gordon that I would never kill myself.’ I did not want to end up like Sandra Bland, who was murdered by police officers in a Texas jail.”

Zendayi said they then took her to a section in the basement of the courthouse, placed her in a holding cell, and confiscated her belongings around 3 p.m. “They went through everything, took both cell phones, and asked if they could turn off my phones. I said ‘no,’ so they placed them in airplane mode.”

Then she was taken in a van to Santa Rita Jail in Dublin, which, because of traffic took almost two hours. “They asked me if I was on drugs and asked me to give a urine sample. I refused. They took a mug shot, and I was told it would be Monday before I could go to court. They put me in a cell with feces on the wall.

An hour after being detained, a deputy asked Jendayi if she knew someone who worked for the county and then asked if knew someone from the Sheriff’s Office and answered ‘no’ to both questions. He said, “You must know someone because we received orders to release you immediately. You’ll be out of here in about 40 minutes.”

“Rev. Raymond Langford of the Oakland Private Industry Council has been helping me to negotiate for more time to stay in my home,” Jendayi said. “I have an appeal with the Northern District Court of Appeals, where I’ve been promised they will review my case based on its merits. I was hoping to stay (in my home) until they reached a determination.

Rev. Langford reached out to Alameda County Supervisor Nikki Fortunata Bas and Chief Administrator David Brown, and they’ve been in contact with Sheriff Yesenia Sanchez.

“They weren’t going to give me the time I requested, but they did say that I would have time to move my belongings and would also be notified when they were coming,” Jendayi said. “None of that occurred.”

Langford said he spoke to Brown, Fortunato Bas and Sanchez right after the first attempt to evict Jendayi on Aug. 25 as well as the Alameda County Counsel and others to negotiate a time for Jendayi to move her belongings.

“There is no truth to the statement that there was no contact [with court and law enforcement officials.] There was an obvious miscommunication between Sanchez and her officers. They don’t have to inform the public of their actions, I understand that, but Zakiya and the community were concerned after they confiscated her guns.”

(Jendayi relinquished her weapons on Aug. 25 when sheriff’s deputies came to forcibly evict her while her petition for bankruptcy was still pending and should have interrupted the eviction process.)

“The Sheriffs have their own trust issues, and they need to work on that. They are not following the chain of command. David Brown, Fortunato Bas’s chief of staff, was puzzled also. He was told they would be informed when they would be returning. He was also blindsided like all of us.”

“(The Sheriffs’ Department) can come to the supervisors and get millions of dollars, but they can’t exhibit the courtesy to inform a citizen when she needs to move.”

“We, our group, ‘Friends of Zakiya,’ took a letter to Sanchez’s office citing Zakiya’s health issues, asking for more time just last week. Sanchez was a person who ran on the platform that she would not run the Sheriff’s Department on a military strategy, which they did on an African American senior in a comfortable, safe community.

“We understand they have to do their job, but we don’t want them targeting and profiling seniors. There has to be some accountability to the community,” Lankford said.

Supervisor Nikki Bas, deeply concerned with what has occurred, is joining with Supervisor Nate Miley to request a meeting with Attorney General Rob Bonta to request an independent investigation.

Post News Group

Posts by Post News Group