Records obtained, 13 November 2026: the Angelo insurance dispute, two California orders and the Trust's tolling terms

At a glance

Established by the records read

The bankruptcy court granted, then eight days later vacated, permission for the Angelo estate to pursue Wellpath LLC as a nominal defendant; the request is pending again after a 26 October hearing and a sealing order for the insurance policies. In Goss a 25 September order dismissed six counts against Wellpath, CFMG and three clinicians; in Montes Zepeda a 22 October order treats CFMG, Inc. as still due to answer after the case was reopened. The Liquidating Trust's tolling order runs to 10 April 2027.

Party positions, not findings

What the Angelo reply says about who is paying for which defendants' defense, and how much.

Not established

Insurance coverage, indemnity, any company's current party status in Goss or Nava, or the contents of the Lara and Maryatt pleadings.

Why a follow-up a day later

The 12 November National Watch graded several records C or D because their text had not been read. On 13 November the same records were looked for again in free public archives: the bankruptcy court's appointed claims agent, the RECAP archive of federal filings, a court-feed reproduction and the settlement administrator. Where a document was read, its grade rises and this page says what it contains. Where it was not, the grade stays where it was. Nothing was bought from PACER, no sealed material was sought, and refused downloads were not retried.

The grades: A actual primary document text examined; B official court-register or administrator information, limited to what the register says; C third-party docket or court-feed reproduction: the entry exists; its unseen contents are not inferred; D secondary index: original records are needed before stronger publication.

The Angelo insurance-access dispute: from C to A for the court's orders

Grade AIn re Wellpath SF Holdco, LLC, Bankr. S.D. Tex. No. 24-90566. The underlying wrongful-death case is in Colorado; it is recorded here because it tests how a discharged Wellpath entity, its insurers and the people it employed meet in one courtroom — the same structure that bears on California claims naming Wellpath LLC.

What the estate's reply says (party position). According to the reply, the debtor's 9 November response stated that it is paying for the defense of the two individual defendants still employed, and has not paid for the other four since the bankruptcy petition date; the reply quotes the second supplemental declaration as reporting $179,770.84 in defense costs in the Colorado case, against $170,198.84 reported as of 5 October. The estate argues that keeping Wellpath LLC as a nominal defendant adds no burden while the same counsel defends the case, and it quotes defense counsel telling the Colorado court in September that, since plan confirmation, Wellpath does not indemnify anyone in these pre-petition cases. [7] These are one side's statements and quotations; the debtor's own papers were not obtained and no ruling on them has been entered.

What this does not establish. No insurance coverage, indemnity obligation, defense-funding arrangement or right to sue has been decided. The sealed policies were not sought. Wellpath SF Holdco, Wellpath LLC, New WPCC Parent LLC and the Liquidating Trust remain distinct. As of the docket read on 13 November, no order on ECF 1955 follows the reply.

Dunkley (ECF 2071)

Grade BThe official docket text describes a second motion by creditor Amanda Dunkley for a declaratory judgment determining the extent of liability and her right to pursue insurance proceeds, filed 11 November with four exhibits. The claims agent had not posted the motion when checked. It is a separate creditor's matter, not part of Angelo. [1]

The Liquidating Trust's tolling order (ECF 2059)

Grade AThe signed stipulation, entered 6 November, is now read. The trustee asserts potential avoidance and related claims over pre-petition transfers to three counterparties the order calls the Sellers — including $250,000 paid to each in September and October 2024 ($750,000 in all), described in the plan disclosure statement as non-litigation settlement payments — and asserts that the deadline to sue on certain claims was 12 November 2026. The order extends the time to sue to 10 April 2027, which counsel may extend further by written agreement noticed on the docket. The Sellers dispute the claims; the recitals are expressly not admissions; no lawsuit, finding or recovery follows from the order. [8]

California records

Goss v. County of San Luis Obispo

Grade AThe court's order of 25 September (ECF 63) granted the motion of the defendants it called the CFMG Defendants — Wellpath, CFMG and three individually named clinicians. Six counts (1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 8) were dismissed as to them for failure to state a claim; only Count 1, against the three clinicians, could be re-pleaded, and the others were dismissed without leave to amend. The negligence and loss-of-consortium counts against CFMG and the clinicians were not challenged and remained, as did every claim against the County. In a footnote the court recorded the defendants' statement that Wellpath and CFMG are separate entities and that CFMG, not Wellpath, holds the county contract — accepting the pleading as true for the motion, not deciding the point. [9]

The fourth amended complaint of 23 October (ECF 75), also read, again names "Wellpath" as a Delaware limited liability company and California Forensic Medical Group separately, adds individual defendants, and pleads nine causes of action. [9] The entries that followed — dismissal-labelled entries on 2 and 6 November, an answer on 3 November, errata on 9 November and the 11 November order adding and terminating parties (ECF 77–83) — are not in the free archive. Which companies remain parties is therefore not stated here. [10]

Montes Zepeda v. County of Stanislaus

Grade AThe 7 October order (ECF 80) granted, with prejudice, the motion to dismiss brought by CFMG and thirteen of the fourteen CFMG employees named, finding the amended complaint conclusory and amendment futile; the case was marked closed. After the 21 October reopening, a stipulated order signed 22 October (ECF 86), now read, extended to 11 November the deadline for CFMG, Inc. and five individually named clinicians to respond to the first amended complaint. The court and the parties therefore treated CFMG, Inc. as a defendant still due to respond after the dismissal order. Why the case was reopened, and which claims now stand against whom, are not in the free archive; the answers of 22 October and 10 November (ECF 85, 87) were not read. [11]

Nava v. Son (formerly Nava v. County of Calaveras)

Grade BThe docket explains the changed caption: a stipulated order of 27 July (ECF 38) dismissed the County of Calaveras with prejudice under a settlement whose enforcement the court retained. [12] The 13 November response date set by ECF 48 for CFMG and two clinicians was followed by an entry on 10 November (ECF 51) that the docket labels "Dismiss" — the same label it used for CFMG's June motion to dismiss (ECF 29). ECF 51's text and filer were not read: it is recorded as a dismissal-related filing within the response window, not as a ruling. [12, 13]

Unchanged or still held

• Lara (C.D. Cal., filed 10 November): only the case-opening entries exist in the free archive; the complaint and interested-party certificate remain unread. Grade C. [14]
• Maryatt (Napa Superior Court): a secondary index lists document titles from 20–23 October and 4 November and a case-management conference on 17 December 2026; the documents are behind a subscription and were not obtained. Grade D. [15]
• Overfield: ECF 95 and its attachments are not in the free archive; the 4 November article stands. Grade A for ECF 96 unchanged. [16]
• Hernandez: the administrator's latest notice is still 9 November (second-round checks mailed 4 November; void after 2 February 2027). [17]

Still to obtain

• Bankruptcy ECF 2009–2011, 2064–2065 and 2071 (download refused or not posted), and any order on ECF 1955.
• Goss ECF 77–83 and the current party list.
• Montes Zepeda 21 October minute orders and ECF 85–87.
• Nava ECF 47 and 51.
• Lara ECF 1 and 4; Maryatt operative complaint and the October and November filings; Overfield ECF 95.

← National Watch, 12 November · Current developments · Insurance and indemnity · Investigation home

Published 13 November 2026. Original KPSGILL documentary investigation by Kanwar Partap Singh Gill, MD, prepared with AI assistance from public court records read on 13 November 2026 (Pacific). Court orders, docket text, party positions and analytical inferences are distinguished throughout. Public sources only; no party was contacted before publication; the author's standing statement of interest for this investigation applies. Human review of this page has not yet been recorded.

Sources

Read on 13 November 2026 (Pacific) unless stated. A docket entry establishes that a paper was filed; it establishes nothing about contents that were not read.

1. Claims and noticing agent's public docket for In re Wellpath SF Holdco, LLC, No. 24-90566 (Bankr. S.D. Tex.). dm.epiq11.comDocket text for ECF 1955–2074 read 13 November 2026. The agent is appointed by the bankruptcy court; some documents listed there could not be downloaded and were not retried.
2. ECF 1955 — Estate of Abby Angelo's motion to proceed against Wellpath LLC for insurance proceeds (2 September 2026). document.epiq11.comRead. Party filing.
3. ECF 2000 — order granting the motion (signed 28 September 2026). document.epiq11.comRead. Court order.
4. ECF 2012 — order vacating ECF 2000 (signed 6 October 2026). document.epiq11.comRead. Court order.
5. ECF 2036 — courtroom minutes and appearance sheet, hearing of 26 October 2026. document.epiq11.comDocket text and appearance sheet read.
6. ECF 2061 — order sealing insurance exhibits (signed 9 November 2026). document.epiq11.comRead. Court order.
7. ECF 2074 — the estate's reply (12 November 2026). document.epiq11.comRead. Party filing; exhibits 1, 2, 4 and 5 downloaded, exhibit 3 not obtained.
8. ECF 2059 — stipulation and agreed order tolling time limits (entered 6 November 2026). document.epiq11.comRead. Court-approved stipulation.
9. Goss v. County of San Luis Obispo, No. 2:26-cv-04235 (C.D. Cal.) — RECAP docket. www.courtlistener.comECF 63 (order, 25 September 2026) and ECF 75 (fourth amended complaint, 23 October 2026) read from the free archive; ECF 77–83 not in it.
10. Goss — court-feed reproduction. casemagic.aiDocket labels only.
11. Montes Zepeda v. County of Stanislaus, No. 2:25-cv-03299 (E.D. Cal.) — RECAP docket. www.courtlistener.comECF 80 (order, 7 October 2026) and ECF 86 (stipulated order, 22 October 2026) read; minute orders and answers not in the archive.
12. Nava v. Son, No. 2:25-cv-03613 (E.D. Cal.) — RECAP docket. www.courtlistener.comDocket text of signed orders read; ECF 51 not in the archive.
13. Nava — court-feed reproduction. casemagic.aiDocket labels only.
14. Lara, III v. County of Santa Barbara, No. 2:26-cv-13163 (C.D. Cal.) — RECAP docket. www.courtlistener.comCase-opening entries only; no documents in the archive.
15. Maryatt v. California Forensic Medical Group, Inc., et al., No. 26CV001433 (Napa Super. Ct.) — secondary index. trellis.lawDocument titles and one calendar entry; documents behind a subscription, not obtained.
16. Overfield v. Wellpath, LLC, No. 2:24-cv-00199 (E.D. Cal.) — RECAP docket. www.courtlistener.comECF 95 not in the archive.
17. Hernandez v. County of Monterey — court-authorized settlement administrator. www.montereyjailsettlement.comRe-read 13 November 2026; latest notice dated 9 November.