Family Law Tentative Rulings
Family Law Tentative Ruling Announcements
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 1:30 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 matter.
The following are the tentative ruling cases calendared before Judge Alan Cassidy in Department #11:
FL-21-000111 – ROCHA VS. FERNANDEZ
Respondent’s Request for Order re Child Custody, etc.—HEARING REQUIRED, in part; DENIED, without prejudice, in part.
The child custody and visitation requests were mediated on November 14, 2022, and are not eligible for tentative ruling.
The property control request regarding the marital residence is disputed by Petitioner’s responsive declaration and conflicts with the pending Domestic Violence Petition filed by Petitioner on December 2, 2022. This matter requires a hearing and the Court may, depending on the evidence and testimony, find that that Respondent’s request should be consolidated with the pending DVRO proceeding.
Respondent’s remaining requests seeks division of certain allegedly community property assets. The Court has no authority to order sale of marital assets before trial except under limited circumstances not alleged by Respondent. (See, Fam. Code, § 2108.) While the Court has discretion to bifurcate issues for early and separate trial, Respondent has not requested this nor followed the mandatory procedures for doing so. (See, Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 5.390.) Respondent may wish to seek legal advice at his own expense, but may also contact the Court’s Self-Help Center for free assistances with legal forms and procedures.
The following are the tentative ruling cases calendared before Judge J. Richard Distaso in Department #13:
FL-21-003139 – HERNANDEZ VS. MARTINELLI
Grandparent’s Motion re Joinder – GRANTED.
The moving grandparent has demonstrated entitlement to be joined to the pending action per Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 5.24, in order to pursue her request for visitation per Family Code §3102.
FL-22-002714 - REYES-MARTINEZ VS. MARTINEZ
Respondent’s Request for Order re Petitioner’s Signature to Withdraw Pension – DENIED, without prejudice.
Respondent failed to submit proof of service of the instant request on Petitioner.
FL-21-002000 – VIGIL VS. LUNA DE VILLAGOMEZ
Petitioner’s Request for Order re Respondent to Participate in Vocational Evaluation – GRANTED.
Petitioner has demonstrated good cause for an order compelling Respondent’s participation in the requested evaluation in order to aid the Court in evaluating Respondent’s request for spousal support. (Fam. Code §4331.) Counsel shall meet and confer with regard to an agreeable date for the subject exam, following which Petitioner shall submit a proposed order containing the details required by Fam. Code §4331(b) for the Court’s review and signature.
The following are the tentative ruling cases calendared before Judge Jack M. Jacobson in Department #14:
THERE ARE NO TENTATIVES.
The following are the tentative ruling cases calendared before Judge Marcus L. Mumford in Department #25:
FL-22-002535 – WEBSTER VS. WEBSTER
(a) Petitioner filed this order request prior to retaining counsel and the requests duplicate those filed by Petitioner’s current counsel of record in motion (b), for which temps have been granted pending hearing. Accordingly, motion (a) appears moot and, in any event, Petitioner has not filed proof of service as required. (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 5.94(b).) The hearing is vacated and no appearances are necessary.
(b) The Court signed the Order on Petitioner’s Request to Reschedule Hearing on December 1, 2022. No appearances are necessary.