Family Law Tentative Rulings

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 matter.

Date: July 5, 2022

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 Jack M. Jacobson in Department #14:

Case No. FL-21-001851    IRMO ORAND VS ORAND

Respondent’s RFO to Set Aside Judgment

Proposed Tentative Ruling: DENIED. The judgment entered on March 17, 2022 was for dissolution only. The original MSA and the January 25, 2022 FOAH modifying the MSA were both attached. There is no error.

The Court does not rule on Respondent’s request to consolidate the cases as it is not properly before this Court at this time.

The following are the tentative ruling cases calendared before Judge Marcus L. Mumford in Department #25:

FL-21-002884 – HOWARD VS HOWARD

Petitioner’s Request for Order re Set Aside Judgment—HEARING REQUIRED.

Petitioner alleges the parties have reconciled and seeks to set aside the Judgment and incorporated Marital Settlement Agreement (Judgment/MSA) entered on April 20, 2022.  Petitioner’s proof of service indicates valid service, but Respondent has not filed a Responsive Declaration.  (Fam. Code, § 215; Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 5.92.) 

Pursuant to the Judgment/MSA, marital status termination does not become effective until July 11, 2022.  Thus, Petitioner may simply voluntarily dismiss this  action provided Respondent consents.  (Fam. Code, § 2338(c).)  If so, there is no need to set aside the judgment.  Petitioner may do so using the mandatory Judicial Council form (CIV-110) by checking box 1.(a)(2) for dismissal “without prejudice” and box 1.(b)(5) for an “entire action” dismissal, and then having Respondent sign and date where indicated in No. 3, evidencing Respondent’s consent.  (Item No. 2 is not required because it does not apply to Family Law cases.)  The CIV-110 must then be filed with the Family Law Clerk’s Office to become effective.

This will prevent status termination and restore the parties’ marital status.  However, to cancel the incorporated MSA, the Court must find that the parties mutually intend to revoke the MSA because they have reconciled.  (Crossley v. Crossley (1950) 97 Cal.App.2d 627, 629; In re Marriage of Broderick (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 489, 497-498.)  A hearing is therefore necessary for Petitioner and Respondent to clearly express their intent on the record.  The Court cautions the parties that if the CIV-110 is not filed on or before July 11, 2022, the ability to voluntarily dismiss the action may become unavailable.

218100 – GONZALEZ VS RODRIGUEZ

Respondent’s Request for Order re Amend Judgment, etc.—HEARING REQUIRED.

If Respondent is merely seeking to have her maiden name restored, then the Court may grant the request ex parte, order the judgment amended and order the amended judgment entered “nunc pro tunc,” i.e., back-dated, to the date judgment was originally entered on March 7, 2000, provided that Respondent can show the Court that the failure to obtain name restoration resulted from mistake, inadvertence or excusable neglect, that there is no prejudice to Petitioner in doing so now, and that otherwise Respondent has or is likely to suffer injustice from any further delay in restoration of her former or maiden name.  (Fam. Code, §§ 2080 [restoration of birth or former name ex parte even if not requested in the petition], Fam. Code, § 2346 [statutory judgment nunc pro tunc]; Code Civ. Proc., § 473(a),(d) [amend or correct judgment]; In re Marriage of Mallory (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 1165, 1176-1177; Judicial Council form FL-395 [“Ex Parte Application for Restoration of Former Name After Entry of Judgment and Order”].)  Respondent may then submit the FL-395 and the Court will sign the order portion.

Otherwise, and particularly if Petitioner’s rights may be affected by amendment of the judgment, then the Court is inclined to deny the order request without prejudice because Respondent has not filed proof of service on Respondent and any post-judgment order that impacts the substantive rights of the other party must be individually served or else it is void.  (Fam. Code, § 215; Cal. Rules of Ct., rules 5.94(b), 5.92(f)(2); Marriage of Seagondollar (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 1116, 1130.)