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: April 16, 2026

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

FL-25-000596 – REHMAN VS ANJUMAN

a) Petitioner’s Request for Order re Compel Response, etc.; b) Petitioner’s Request for Order re Stay Enforcement, etc.

Request for Order (a) and (b)—HEARING REQUIRED.

Pursuant to the Findings and Order After Hearing (FOAH) of April 8, 2026, the Court made findings and rulings on two previously pending matters and continued them for further hearing on this date, reserving on the above-referenced order requests.  Accordingly, parties and/or counsel of record shall appear and the Court may offer an Indicated Ruling on any matters not resolved or rendered moot by the prior FOAH.

8004609 – VASQUEZ VS VASQUEZ

Respondent’s Request for Order re “Clarification,” etc.—HEARING REQUIRED.

The Court is inclined to deny Respondent’s order request based on some, but not all, of the reasons and legal arguments submitted by Petitioner’s Responsive Declaration, particularly the “Attachment” by Petitioner’s counsel of record that appears to be a Memorandum of Points and Authorities.  That said, upon review of the docket, the Court has not seen any evidence of a Notice of Related Case filed by either party in this matter as to the alleged related civil matter, Case No. CV-25-012731.  Counsel for Petitioner is invited to offer the Court any information or explanation as to the absence of this pleading that is required by the Rules of Court.

FL-25-001827 – DACLAN VS DACLAN

Respondent’s Request for Order re Child Custody, etc.—HEARING REQUIRED, in part; DENIED, in part.

The request to modify current child custody and visitation orders is not eligible for tentative ruling and requires a hearing.

The request for reconsideration of the Findings and Order After Hearing (FOAH) of February 9, 2026, is denied. A motion for reconsideration must be made within ten (10) days of notice of the order or decision for which reconsideration is sought.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 1008(a).) Respondent’s order request was not filed until February 20, 2026, which is one day more than allowed by code.  This time limit is jurisdictional as to party motions for reconsideration.  (Id., § 1008(e).)  But even if the motion were timely, Respondent’s declaration fails to provide sufficient grounds under the statute that new or different facts, circumstances or law exist that were not provided at the time of the original decision and that Respondent could not have obtained or offered at the hearing in the exercise of reasonable diligence.  Accordingly, statutory reconsideration is denied.

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: 

8002197 – HERD VS HERD

Petitioner’s Request for Order re Change Venue, etc.—DENIED, without prejudice.

Petitioner’s proof of service asserts mail service of Respondent on March 31, 2026.  This method of service adds ten (10) calendar days to the amount of any required notice period where the recipient resides out of state, as does Respondent.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 1013(a).)  A Request for Order must be served on the opposing party sixteen (16) court days prior to the date set for the hearing.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 1005(b); Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 5.92.)  This means that the latest date for valid and timely mail service on Respondent fell on March 14, 2026.  Respondent did not file any Responsive Declaration or other response and without a personal appearance and waiver, the Court must deny the order request, albeit without prejudice, due to insufficient notice and service.

That said, even if service were valid or Respondent appears and waives any objection, there is a substantive defect that prevents the Court from granting this request.  Venue has to do with the county within the state of California in which the action is filed.  Where venue is improper, or otherwise as authorized by law, the Court may grant a request to change venue by transferring the case from the forum Superior Court to the proper or more convenient Superior Court of another county within the state of California.  But that power does not include authority to transfer a case filed in this state to any other state, as Petitioner requests.  The courts of this state have no power or authority over the courts of any other sister state. There are laws that provide for the Court to decline “home state jurisdiction” under the UCCJEA, or to dismiss an action in favor of a more convenient forum in another state, but that is not Petitioner’s request and the Court must remain neutral and may not offer either party legal advice.

Accordingly, the request is denied without prejudice.  Petitioner may wish to seek legal advice at her own expense, and is welcome to contact the Court’s Self-Help Center for free assistance with forms and procedures not amounting to legal advice.

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

THERE ARE NO TENTATIVES.