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: March 3, 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:

FL-26-000085 – DIAZ VS MARTINEZ

Petitioner’s Request for Order re Property Control, etc.—HEARING REQUIRED.

There is no proof of service on file and temporary orders were granted.  Absent appearance by the moving party and a showing of good cause to continue the hearing, or personal appearance and waiver by Respondent, the Court will deny the request without prejudice for non-service and the temporary orders will expire.  (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 5.94(b).)

The following are the tentative ruling cases calendared before Judge Sarah Birmingham in Department #14: 

FL-24-002222 – MENDES VS MENDES

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

The Court continued the hearing on this matter to permit Petitioner to submit a further declaration regarding viability and efforts to refinance or otherwise in order to comply with the parties’ final judgment that awards Petitioner the subject real property as her separate property but requires Petitioner to remove Respondent’s name from title.  The Court has no authority to rewrite or modify the express terms of a final judgment with respect to property division. 

That said, the Court’s reserved jurisdiction includes power over the means and manner of enforcement when requested and consistent with the terms of the final judgment.  While the judgment does provide for the listing and sale of the property if Petitioner did not remove Respondent’s name on or before July 1, 2025, the judgment is silent as to the timing and sale of the subject property after listing. 

Accordingly, the Court will grant the order to list and sell the property, effective April 1, 2026, unless Petitioner has by this date, complied with the judgment by removing Respondent’s name from title and the change in title has either been recorded or the property is in escrow with a date certain for close and the escrow company has received express instructions to effectuate the change in title and recordation of the deed upon close.

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

Petitioner’s Request for Order re Child Custody, etc.—HEARING REQUIRED, in part; DENIED, without prejudice, in part.

The custody and visitation requests were mediated on February 10, 2026, and are not at issue for this hearing.

The child and spousal support requests, and counter requests, are not eligible for tentative ruling and require a hearing.  That said, unless there have been no changes, Respondent’s last Income and Expense Declaration was filed on July 29, 2025, and the Court will require updated and/or current financial declarations as to both parties before considering either party’s requests for support or for need-based attorney’s fees and costs. 

The remaining request is for property control and/or an order to list and sell the marital residence.  That request is denied without prejudice.  While the parties are free to reach an agreement as to the sale and division of their own community property, the Court does not characterize, value and divide the marital estate until the time of trial, because the Court’s duty is to accomplish an equal division of the entire marital estate as a whole and not bit by bit.  While there are exceptions for property that is at risk of loss, there is no showing that the mortgage is in default and the property is subject to foreclosure proceedings.  However, before trial, the Court does have authority to grant one spouse temporary and exclusive possession, but that question must be addressed at the hearing because both parties seek it.