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 3:30 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: familylaw.tentatives@stanct.org 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 matters own motion, the Court orders Respondent to comply within thirty (30) days of this ruling and admonishes Respondent that the failure to do so may result in the striking of the Response and entry of Respondent’s default.
The following are the tentative ruling cases calendared before Judge Alan Cassidy in Department #11:
THERE ARE NO TENTATIVES.
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 Judge Sarah Birmingham in Department #14:
FL-25-002771 – GUTIERREZ, ERIKA vs ANDRADE, MATTHEW – Petitioner’s Request for Order to Sell Residential Property – DENIED without prejudice.
From a review of the court file, it appears that the summons and petition have not yet been served on the Respondent. There is also no record of the Respondent having appeared in the case. As a result, the Court does not yet have jurisdiction to make an order affecting property in which Respondent has an interest. Furthermore, Respondent has not received proper notice of this hearing.
In addition, Family Code § 2108 requires the Moving Party to serve the appropriate declaration of disclosure before the Court can grant an order to sell assets, and there is no record of Moving Party having done this, either.
Consequently, the Request for Order is DENIED without prejudice.
FL-24-002977 – CONTRERAS, SALVADOR vs CONTRERAS, MARIA LUISA – Respondent’s Request for Order to Change Spousal Support; to Determine and Divide Community Home – HEARING REQUIRED.
The Court is inclined to DENY the request for an order to determine and divide the community home. It appears that the judgment filed on March 4, 2025, addressed this issue; the Court already determined the division. This current request to re-argue the division was filed more than six months after the judgment was entered; the request is therefore untimely. Although the Court did retain jurisdiction, it was for the purpose of ensuring “the satisfactory disposition” of the home as set forth in the judgment, not for the purpose of determining (or re-determining) the division of the asset.
As for the request for spousal support, the Court will hear arguments at the hearing on this issue.
The following are the tentative ruling cases calendared before Judge David I. Hood in Department #25:
THERE ARE NO TENTATIVES.