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: May 01, 2025

The following are the tentative ruling cases calendared before Judge Alan Cassidy in Department #11:

FL-18-001082 – FREEMAN VS FREEMAN

Attorney for Petitioner’s Motion to Be Relieved—HEARING REQUIRED.

The only proof of service on file for Petitioner is by email and there is no documentation regarding Petitioner’s consent, as a potential pro se litigant, to be served electronically. 

The Court has other concerns regarding the showing that was made to support the factual basis for involuntary withdrawal that will need to be addressed before the Court will entertain relieving counsel.  (See, Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.1362(c) [“The declaration must state in general terms and without compromising the confidentiality of the attorney-client relationship why a motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 284(2) is brought instead of filing a consent under Code of Civil Procedure section 284(1)”], emphasis added.) 

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 Sweena Pannu in Department #14:

FL-23-003381 – QUARESMA VS QUARESMA

Petitioner’s Request for Order re “Compel PDD’s,” etc.—DENIED, without prejudice.

There is no proof of service on file. (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 5.94(b).) 

Even if Respondent were to appear and waive service, Petitioner’s declaration only alleges that the necessary informal demands were made to obtain Respondent’s compliance with the Preliminary Declaration of Disclosure (PDD) requirement.  (Fam. Code, § 2107(a).) 

As such, while the Court may grant the request to formally order Respondent to serve PDD’s and file proof of service of such with the Court, the Court may not grant Petitioner’s request to strike Respondent’s Response and enter Respondent’s default.  This authority only exists after a party has failed to comply with an order to serve PDD’s.  (Fam. Code, § 2107(b).)  And before the Court considers a “terminating sanction” of the kind requested, it must be demonstrated that lesser remedial measures, such as monetary, issue or evidentiary sanctions, have failed to obtain Respondent’s compliance.  (Ibid.) 

Lastly, the request for a sale order of the 2002 Centurion boat would likely be denied without prejudice.  Unless the parties stipulate to a sale of community property, the Court’s only authority to order a pre-trial sale of a community asset requires proof of “unreasonable market risk of loss.”  (Fam. Code, § 2108.)  Here, Petitioner’s allegations only assert that the sale order is justified by Petitioner’s financial need, which is insufficient as a matter of law.  Alternatively, Petitioner may seek to bifurcate and ask that the subject boat be set for early and separate trial, but to do so requires a separate order request and compliance with mandatory Judicial Council form attachments.  (See, Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 5.390.) 

The following are the tentative ruling cases calendared before Judge David I. Hood in Department #25:

FL-24-002563 – SEE VS WILSON

Attorney for Respondent’s Motion for Admission of Counsel Pro Hac Vice—HEARING REQUIRED.

First, the motion was not filed and served within the time prescribed by the operative Rule of Court and no order shortening time was sought or granted.  (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 9.40(c)(1) [notice as per Code Civ. Proc., § 1005, i.e., 16 court days plus 5 calendar days for mail service].) 

Second, there is no declaration or affidavit attesting to prior applications for appearance pro hac vice in California—if any—within the preceding two years, which is a necessary finding per rule 9.40(d).

Third, the Court is typically proffered some confirmation by the California State Bar regarding the pro hac vice application and this correspondence typically confirms that the Bar has no objection to the application.

Otherwise, the moving papers are in order and the Court is inclined to grant the motion if counsel appear and satisfy the Court’s above-stated concerns.