Family Law Tentative Rulings

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.

Date: 05/06/2026

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: 

8010646 – WILSON VS HERNANDEZ

Respondent’s Request for Order re Elisor, etc.—DENIED, without prejudice.

Judgment in this case was entered March 9, 2020.  The Court’s docket does not show any proof of service on Petitioner and Petitioner has not filed a Responsive Declaration.  Valid and timely proof of party service is required and, in post-judgment matters, the requirement is jurisdictional.  (Fam. Code, § 215(a).) If Respondent appears and demonstrates good cause to continue the hearing to ensure proper service, or if Petitioner personally appears and waives such, the Court may consider not dropping the order request for non-service.

The following are the tentative ruling cases calendared before Judge Maria Elena Ramos-Ratliff in Department #25:  

FL-26-000515 – NAVARRETE VS NAVARRETE

Petitioner’s Request for Order re “Other,” etc.—HEARING REQUIRED.

There is no proof of service on file for the current Request for Order (RFO), and Petitioner’s prior identical RFO was denied without prejudice for, among other things, lack of service even though Respondent appeared and was provided with a copy at the hearing.  The Court granted an Order Shortening Time (OST) and an OST is equivalent to an “emergency order” for purposes of the Rules of Court mandating notice and personal service.  (Cal. Rules of Ct., rules 5.92(d)(1) [OST must be submitted as a temporary emergency order], 5.94(b) [proof of service must be filed 5 court days before hearing], 5.151(b)(3) [OST’s or continuance are emergency orders], 5.167(b) [personal service of emergency orders].) 

Moreover, in denying Petitioner’s request for temporary emergency orders to grant Petitioner’s elisor request as to the subject QDRO, the Court noted that Petitioner’s QDRO, as submitted, does not appear legally valid and that an amended QDRO would be required to be filed and/or lodged prior to the hearing that remedies the defects noted by the Court.  As of this, no such amended QDRO appears to have been filed or lodged.

Lastly, final judgment in this matter was entered on June 5, 1989.  As such, Family Code section 215 mandates valid and timely individual party service and makes any order or decision made without compliance or waiver void as a matter of law and subject to set aside at any time.  (Fam. Code, § 215(a); Marriage of Seagondollar (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 1116, 1130; Marriage of Kreiss (1990) 224 Cal.App.3d 1033, 1038-1039.)

Petitioner shall therefore appear and demonstrate good cause for a further continuance of the hearing unless Respondent personally appears and waives notice and service.  The Court will expect an amended QDRO to have been prepared by Petitioner and a copy shall be provided to the Court for review if the matter is to be heard or rescheduled.  If not dropped and/or denied due to notice and service defects, then any grant of Petitioner’s RFO will be expressly conditioned on Petitioner’s compliance with the Local Rules governing elisor requests.  (See Local Rules, rule 7.08(A) [Appointment of Elisors].) 

Petitioner may wish to seek legal advice at her own expense but is also welcome to contact the Court’s Self-Help Center regarding this tentative ruling for free assistance with forms and procedures not involving legal advice.