Family Law Tentative Rulings
Family Law Tentative Ruling Announcements
The family court issues tentative ruling announcements on the court day prior to the scheduled hearing for specific types of motions. Tentative rulings are only provided on the Internet and posted in the clerk’s office lobby. Internet postings occur at 1:30 p.m. daily.
Parties are not required to give notice of intent to appear to preserve the right to a hearing. The tentative ruling will not become final until the hearing. (Stan. Cnty. Local Rules, rule 7.05.1) However, as a courtesy to the Court, and other parties or counsel with matters on calendar, notice of intended appearance or non-appearance is encouraged and may be sent by e-mail to the following address: email@example.com between the hours of 1:30 p.m. and 4:00 p.m. If you do not receive a confirmation e-mail from the clerk, you may call to speak directly with a Calendar Clerk at 209-530-3107.
Any party filing pleadings or documents on a tentative ruling matter within five (5) days of the hearing should provide a courtesy copy to the Courtroom Clerk and the Court’s Family Law Research Attorney by placing a copy in the drop box slot on the door of Room 223, Second Floor of the main Courthouse. Failure to do so may prevent the Court from consideration of such, may result in a continuance, and/or may be considered in the award of conduct-based fees and costs. (Stan. Cnty. Local Rules, rule 7.05.1(B).)
All parties and counsel are required to meet and confer in a good faith effort to resolve the dispute on any request, motion or hearing, with the exception of those involving domestic violence, and to exchange any documents upon which reliance will be made at the hearing. (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 5.98; Stan. Cnty. Local Rules, rule 7.05.1(C).) Failure to do so may result in a continuance and may be considered in the award of conduct-based fees and costs, or both. If sufficient information regarding an adequate pre-hearing meet and confer effort is not provided in the moving and opposing papers, in the Court’s discretion, the matter may be placed at the end of the calendar and not called until the parties or counsel advise the Court that they have complied with their obligations and/or resolved the matter.
Date: May 31, 2023
The following are the tentative ruling cases calendared before Judge Alan Cassidy in Department #11:
FL-23-001183 – SOARES VS SOARES
Petitioner’s Request for Order re Property Control—HEARING REQUIRED.
Given Petitioner’s declaration, the Court granted temporary orders. However, more than conclusory assertions will be required to make those orders permanent, at least on a pendente lite basis.
Petitioner’s declaration, for instance, does not mention what business is being conducted and/or managed from the subject properties, did not describe their nature (commercial, residential, agricultural, etc.) and did not explain what entity form, if any, the business is being operated under, whether corporate, partnership, or sole proprietorship. Proof of service of summons has been filed as to Respondent and therefore the ATRO’s have full force and effect as to both parties.
The default rule is that spouses have equal access to and ownership/control of community property subject, of course, to the fiduciary duty that each spouse owes to the other. (Fam. Code, §§ 1100(a), 1102.) If Petitioner is claiming that he is the “operator spouse” as to a business that is substantially or more community property, then Petitioner would by default have the primary management and control of said business unless Petitioner’s claims were disputed. (Fam. Code, § 1100(d) [“[A] spouse who is operating or managing a business or an interest in a business that is all or substantially all community personal property has the primary management and control of the business or interest”].)
The following are the tentative ruling cases calendared before Judge J. Richard Distaso in Department #13:
THERE ARE NO TENTATIVES.
The following are the tentative ruling cases calendared before Department #14 Judge, in Department #14:
THERE ARE NO TENTATIVES.
The following are the tentative ruling cases calendared before Judge Marcus L. Mumford in Department #25:
FL-22-000959 – ROSE VS ROSE
Petitioner’s Request for Order re Enforce Sale, etc.—DENIED, without prejudice.
There is no proof of service on file and Petitioner filed an affidavit of unsuccessful service by the Sheriff’s Civil Division for service on Respondent. Respondent is represented and mail service on Respondent’s current counsel of record would have been sufficient, but without valid service the Court has no jurisdiction to proceed with a post-judgment motion. (Fam. Code, § 215(a).) For good cause shown, however, the Court will continue the hearing on Petitioner’s motion until the hearing on Respondent’s recently filed motion to set aside the default and default judgment based on new legal authority that is set for June 15, 2023, at 9:00 a.m., in this Department. Until it is known whether Respondent’s default and the judgment will be set aside, in whole or in part, it would be inappropriate and likely a waste of time and/or money to proceed with judgment enforcement.
FL-21-001991 – VALDOVINOS VS DOMINGUEZ
Petitioner’s Request for Order re Payment of Reimbursement, etc.—DENIED, without prejudice.
There is no proof of service on file and Petitioner filed an affidavit of unsuccessful service by the Sheriff’s Civil Division for service on Respondent. Respondent is not represented and individual party service is required for the Court to have jurisdiction to proceed with the motion. (Fam. Code, § 215(a); Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 5.92, 5.94.) Petitioner will need to appear and show good cause to continue the hearing or else Petitioner will have to file a new motion and have it timely and properly served.