Estate of Simon CA2/7

facts sufficient to support his undue influence claim but holding, based on Anebere’s description in his reply brief and at oral argument of facts he could allege concerning Jones’s role in the creation of Simon’s trust, he should be permitted “one final opportunity” to amend his petition to do so. However, we cautioned Anebere’s standing to invalidate the trust for undue influence was premised on his status as a beneficiary under the holographic will and, if a final determination was made that this testamentary document was invalid, any amendment by Anebere would be futile. While Anebere’s initial appeal was pending, the probate court denied with prejudice Anebere’s petition to admit the holographic will to probate as a terminating sanction for his repeated failure, despite multiple continuances, to comply with the Los Angeles Superior Court’s local rules requiring him to clear the court’s probate notes prior to a hearing. We affirmed

2 that final order in Anebere’s second appeal. (Estate of Selma V. Simon (Jan. 22, 2020, B288656 [nonpub. opn.] (Anebere II).) Notwithstanding our suggestion in Anebere I that the probate court postpone any amendment to the petition to invalidate…