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: January 22, 2026

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

8007634 – PINA VS VALENCIA

Respondent’s Request for Order re Set Aside, etc.—DENIED, without prejudice.

First, procedurally speaking, counsel for Respondent attaches a document on pleading paper to the Request for Order (RFO) without identifying whether the pleading is a declaration or a legal brief, although it is styled consistently with a Points & Authorities.  While memoranda of points and authorities are not mandatory in RFO procedure, it is unauthorized and inappropriate to insert legal argument into the moving party’s RFO and declaration, which must utilize the mandatory Judicial Council form (FL-300).  (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 5.92(a)(1), (b)(6); Marriage of Heggie (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 28, 30 fn. 3 [family law practitioners commonly include argument in their declarations, “but it is a sloppy practice which should stop”]; see, i.e., Hogoboom & King, Cal. Prac. Guide Family L. (TRG 2026) Ch. 5-D, § 5:327.)  Going forward, the Court welcomes legal briefs but counsel for Respondent shall sign, file and serve them separately from the FL-300 form and any accompanying declarations or affidavits.

Second, Family Code section 3087, by its express terms, does not, as counsel argues, provide “a clear legal basis for vacating the October 28, 2025 custody order.”  Section 3087 reads in relevant part:

An order for joint custody may be modified or terminated upon the petition of one or both parents or on the court's own motion if it is shown that the best interest of the child requires modification or termination of the order.  (Fam. Code, § 3087, emphasis added.)

Modification, including termination, of a custody order is by no means the same as vacating said order.  Vacatur generally applies to final judgments, or at least permanent orders tantamount to final judgments in the family law context, and not to interim or pendente lite orders, especially when such orders are inherently transient and subject to non-waivable statutory modification based on a material change of circumstance, as here.  (cf., Code Civ. Proc., §§ 656 et seq. [new trial], 473(d) [void order/judgment], 1008(a) [reconsideration]; Garner, et al., Black's Law Dictionary (12th ed. 2024) [“vacatur proceeding (1947) A legal action by which a party seeks to have a court nullify an order, judgment, arbitral award, etc.”].)

Third, Code of Civil Procedure section 473(b) is similarly inapt. That section states in significant part:

The court may, upon any terms as may be just, relieve a party or the party's legal representative from a judgment, dismissal, order, or other proceeding taken against the party through the party's mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. Application for this relief shall be accompanied by a copy of the answer or other pleading proposed to be filed therein, otherwise the application shall not be granted, and shall be made within a reasonable time, in no case exceeding six months, after the judgment, dismissal, order, or proceeding was taken.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 473(b), emphasis added.)

Here, Respondent does not allege that the subject custody order was entered as a result of Respondent’s mistake, or even Petitioner’s mistake or both of theirs, rather Respondent’s allegation is that the Court and/or the Court’s personnel were mistaken in believing that there was an agreement by the parties.  By its express terms, section 473(b) applies only to party or attorney mistake, inadvertence, etc., and other remedies lie for correction of judicial error, whether clerical or otherwise.

Lastly, there is custody modification proceeding already presently pending and vacating the subject custody order—since that may not be done retroactively nunc pro tunc—would produce no different result than what may be accomplished by modification or termination of the same custody order in the pending proceeding, assuming doing so is warranted under the best interest standard.  Indeed, the outcome of the pending proceeding would likely render moot the relief that Respondent seeks by this order request.  The request to vacate the subject custody order is therefore 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: 

THERE ARE NO TENTATIVES.

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

FC-23-000993 – STANISLAUS COUNTY VS PEREZ

Other Parent’s Motion to Quash Subpoenas, etc.—HEARING REQUIRED.

After review of the moving and opposing papers, the Court finds that a discovery dispute has arisen that appears amenable to resolution.  Accordingly, the Court is inclined to set an Informal Discovery Conference (IDC) under the auspices of a Family Centered Case Resolution Plan, and to stay determination of the present motion and any other pending discovery disputes until completion of the IDC. (Fam. Code, §§ 2450(a), 2451(a)(3); Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 5.83(c)(6)(D),(E).)   The parties are invited to appear and be heard on this tentative ruling and, if ordered, to select the earliest mutual available date and time for the IDC.

FL-20-002502 – MEDINA VS MEDINA

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

There is no proof of service on file as required.  (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 5.94(b).)  The Court has twice continued the hearing on this order request due to non-service.  Petitioner may wish to seek legal advice at her own expense regarding methods of substitute service, but is also welcome to contact the Court’s Self-Help Center for free assistance with legal forms and procedures not involving legal advice. 

FL-25-000507 – LANGE VS LANGE

Respondent’s Request for Order re Set Aside Judgment, etc.—DENIED, without prejudice.

Respondent requests to set aside the parties’ final judgment and incorporated Marital Settlement Agreement (MSA) because he alleges that Petitioner “misled” him and “abused his trust.”  Petitioner’s Responsive Declaration disputes these allegations and alleges that the parties used a neutral paralegal document service and that Respondent reviewed and agreed on everything before signing with full knowledge of all facts.  Be that as it may, the time for appeal has expired and the Court’s authority to set aside a final judgment is limited by law.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 473(b); Fam. Code, § 2120 et seq.)  The grounds, time limits and proof required vary based on the particular statutory basis that the moving party is relying upon.  Respondent must therefore file a new order request to set aside citing that authority and offering more proof than bare allegations before the Court may entertain a motion to set aside a final judgment and MSA.