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 21, 2025

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

FL-21-000539 – WILLIAMS VS WILLIAMS

Respondent’s Request for Order re Set Aside Default—HEARING REQUIRED.

There is no proof of service on file and Respondent’s ground for set aside is based on “inadvertence” in that Respondent alleges he had been relying on Petitioner to finalize the divorce and was unaware of Petitioner’s continued failure to do so.  Aside from service, a motion for relief from default based on mistake, surprise, inadvertence or excusable neglect must be both filed and served within six (6) months from entry of default. (Code Civ. Proc., § 473(b).)  Respondent’s motion was filed on March 18, 2025, but the Clerk entered Respondent’s default on Petitioner’s request over three years ago, on August 2, 2021.  That said, Respondent is not wrong that Petitioner’s delay in submitting a relatively simple proposed judgment is grossly excessive and borders on depriving Respondent the right to repose and termination of the parties marital status.  There are grounds for set aside under other statutes than section 473(b) and unreasonable failure to prosecute may be grounds for monetary sanctions, dismissal of the petition and/or an order setting aside Respondent’s default, allowing Respondent to file a Response that will serve in lieu of the petition, combined with an order striking the petition and entering Petitioner’s default.  The parties shall therefore appear and the Court will expect Petitioner to explain the more recent delays—as some of the delay is attributable to the Court’s closure during the pandemic—or the matter may be set for an order to show cause why the Court should not grant any or all of the orders mentioned above so that this non-complex, uncontested dissolution proceeding may be brought to a close.

FL-25-000581 – FLEMING VS MIRANDA

Petitioner’s Request for Order re Genetic Testing, etc.—HEARING REQUIRED.

The minor child at issue was born on February 19, 2011, and is now over fourteen years old. Because Respondent did not file a response to the petition, and her default has been entered, it is unclear whether any competing candidates for paternity exist and, if so, whether such person(s) would have a conclusive or merely rebuttable presumption of paternity that would supervene any claim by Petitioner based on a single reproductive act and hearsay allegations about Respondent’s admissions to others who related the admission to Petitioner.  All persons having or claiming the right to custody of the minor child who are not incapable of being located and served must generally be joined to a petition to determine parental relationship.  As such, unless Respondent appears and admits Petitioner’s paternity or at least concurs with the request for genetic tests, the Court is inclined to deny the request without prejudice.

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-23-002641 – BYRUM VS BYRUM

Petitioner’s Request for Order re “Reopen”—DENIED, without prejudice.

Proof of service is on file and asserts personal service of Respondent by the Sheriff’s Civil Division on April 10, 2025, which is presumptively timely and valid.  Respondent did not file a Responsive Declaration or other opposition. Even so, Petitioner seeks an order to “reopen” this dissolution action but there is no such thing as a “motion to reopen.”  In other words, no statute or rule of court gives the Court authority to consider any such motion.

Here, Petitioner’s former counsel represented to the Court that the parties had reconciled and, as counsel of record, asked the Court to dismiss the Petition.  Accordingly, pursuant to the Case Management Conference Order of January 24, 2025, the Court granted counsel’s request and the case was voluntarily dismissed on even date.  As a matter of law, a written order of dismissal, with or without prejudice, constitutes a judgment in the case and concludes the proceedings. Thereafter, except to the extent otherwise provided by statute, the Court lacks both subject matter and personal jurisdiction to enter further orders in the action. (Lakkees v. Superior Court (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 531, 540 n. 5; Gogri v. Jack In The Box Inc. (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 255, 261; Hogoboom & King, Cal. Prac. Guide Family L. (TRG 2025) Ch. 15-A, § 15:4.) 

That said, because the parties marital status was never terminated and no permanent orders were ever made, nothing prohibits Petitioner from filing a new dissolution petition and starting over. Alternatively, when a default or dismissal results from mistake, surprise, inadvertence or excusable neglect, the Court has authority to set aside the dismissal provided good cause is demonstrated and the motion to set aside is both filed and served on the other party within six (6) months from the entry of default or dismissal.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 473(b).) 

As a neutral, the Court may not provide either side with legal advice. It is therefore up to Petitioner to pursue the remedy deemed best. Petitioner may seek legal advice at his own expense, but may also contact the Court’s Self-Help Center for free assistance with forms and procedures, but not legal advice.

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

THERE ARE NO TENTATIVES.