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: 4/21/2026

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

FL-25-002673 – FIGUEROA VS SOUSA

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

Pursuant to the Court’s Findings and Order After Hearing of March 16, 2026, continuing the matter to the present date and time, the parties shall and appear and advise the Court as to compliance with the Court’s prior orders.

FL-25-002725 – DUNKLE-GARCIA VS McDANIEL

Respondent’s Request for Order re Reconsideration, etc.—DENIED.

The Restraining Order in this matter was entered after trial on February 19, 2026.  Respondent did not file this motion until March 3, 2026. Motions by a party for reconsideration of an order or judgment must be filed and served within ten (10) days of entry where notice is provided in person and/or waived.  Respondent’s motion was filed long after the 10-day time limit expired and this time limit is jurisdictional.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 1008(a), (f).) 

FL-25-002916 – SMITH VS DELGADILLO

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

There is no proof of service on file and Petitioner did not file a Responsive Declaration.  (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 5.94(b).)  Moreover, default judgment has now been entered as of April 16, 2026 and Notice of Entry was filed on the same date.  Consequently, a motion to set aside default, standing alone, is insufficient since the judgment must also be set aside. 

The following are the tentative ruling cases calendared before Judge J. Richard Distaso in Department #13:

FL-18-001750 – GIRALDEZ VS GIRALDEZ

Respondent’s Request for Order re Change of Venue.—HEARING REQUIRED.

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

FL-25-0001617 – MARTINEZ VS PARRA

Respondent’s Request for Order re Set Aside, etc.—GRANTED.

The Court has read and appreciates the declarations of both parties.  However, when Petitioner requested Respondent’s default to be entered, she represented that she was not required to attach the otherwise mandatory financial and disclosure documents, and checked the box on the form asserting that attachment of these documents was excused because “there has been no change since the previous filing.”  However, the Court’s docket demonstrates that, in fact, there were no such prior filings.  This means that the entry of default, and any judgment that could be based on it, is void and subject to set aside at any time by the Court or on party motion. (Code Civ. Proc., § 473(d); see Local Rules, rule 7.03(F) [Unless properly excused, a complete and current Income and Expense Declaration or a Financial Statement (Simplified), and a complete and current Property Declaration shall be attached to the Request to Enter Default. The failure to include the disclosure documents, if required, shall be deemed a sufficient basis to set aside the entry of default upon timely request].)

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

FL-22-000449 – LOPEZ VS LOPEZ

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

There is no proof of service on file and no Responsive Declaration by Petitioner.  (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 5.94(b).)

FL-25-001375 – POLLARD VS POLLARD

Respondent’s Request for Order re Set Aside, etc.—Hearing Required.

The default in this matter was entered by the Clerk of the Court as requested by Petitioner on August 28, 2025.  Respondent’s Request for Order (RFO) was filed on March 6, 2026.  Counsel for Petitioner’s Responsive Declaration alleges that only the declaration of Respondent’s counsel was filed and/or served, and not the RFO.  Either way, since set aside is sought by Respondent under Code of Civil Procedure section 473(b), it is settled that such a motion must be both filed and served within the 6-month limit of that statute.  Indeed, case law has interpreted this time limit to be “jurisdictional.”  (Arambula v. Union Carbide Corp. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 333, 341-342 [Section 473(b) motion untimely where, although filed within 6-month deadline, it was not served during 6-month period]; Rappleyea v. Campbell (1994) 8 Cal.4th 975, 980; see, Hogoboom & King, Cal. Prac. Guide Family L. (TRG 2026) Ch. 16-A, § 16:57.) 

To the extent that the absence of actual notice is alleged and set aside relief also invoked pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 473.5, the Proof of Service re Summons and other pleadings on file constitute prima facie evidence of valid and timely notice.  While this evidentiary presumption is rebuttable, determination of the any disputed questions of fact alleged by Respondent, and disputed by Petitioner, will require a long cause hearing.  Counsel are directed to meet and confer as to whether this is necessary, or whether a stipulation to set aside the default may be submitted, given that no judgment has yet been entered and counsel are no doubt familiar with other statutory grounds for collateral attack and relief from entry of judgment.