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 matter.

Date: July 29, 2024

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

FL-24-001220 – GUALDERAMA VS GUALDERAMA Respondent’s Request for Order re Spousal Support, etc.—HEARING REQUIRED.

The only request besides spousal support is for division of community property, but the Court does not divide assets one at a time, but altogether at the end of the case, at least normally.  For good cause, the Court may “bifurcate” an asset or issue and conduct an early and separate trial, but Respondent’s motion did not follow the procedures that permit the Court to grant such a motion.  That said, since the prior dissolution case already divided most of the community property and decided most of the contested issues before it was dismissed, it would be in the parties’ best interests to resolve this case quickly and the parties are themselves free to divide their remaining community property however they wish.  They simply need to submit a stipulation and order to the Court that reflects their agreement.  The Court’s Self-Help Center offers free assistance with legal forms and procedures.

FL-23-003195 – HUGHES VS HUGHES-KNOTT Respondent’s Request for Order re Compel Disclosures, etc.—DENIED, without prejudice, as moot.

Petitioner has filed proof of service re service of the subject preliminary declarations of disclosure on July 19, 2024.  The order request is therefore moot. 

However, the Court will reserve jurisdiction over the question of conduct-based sanctions and/or fiduciary breach for delay in service of the mandatory disclosures, but Respondent’s request for terminating sanctions against Petitioner is denied. 

It would be an abuse of discretion to impose terminating sanctions against a party in the first instance for non-compliance, a penalty that is usually a last resort when all other lesser remedial measures have failed.

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

FL-24-0478 HRANAC v SCNETZER Pet’s RFO for Division of Omitted Assets – HEARING REQUIRED.

Both parties agree that the pension and retirement accounts at issue are omitted community assets subject to distribution.  If the parties agree on the division, they can submit an order to the Court to review and sign if appropriate. Parties are ordered to meet and confer accordingly.

Child custody and visitation requests on this RFO are mediated and are no longer at issue for this hearing. Child support is not eligible for a Tentative Ruling and requires a hearing.

The following are the tentative ruling cases calendared before Judge Sweena Pannu in Department #14:

THERE ARE NO TENTATIVES.

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

FL-21-002079 – GARCIA VS ARELLANO Petitioner’s Request for Order re Vocational Evaluation—HEARING REQUIRED.

The Court notes that Petitioner’s proof of service demonstrates, appropriately, service on Respondent’s counsel of record at the time, but that a Substitution of Attorney was recently filed and Respondent is now self-represented.  While notice and service are timely given the Order Shortening Time, Respondent may not have had the opportunity to review and to either oppose or consent to the examination.

If the latter, then the parties may submit the previously prepared stipulation and order and a contested hearing is unnecessary.

If the former, then the Court is inclined to grant the motion because good cause exists for a vocational examination whenever there is pending dispute regarding spousal support and “the spouse seeking support or the spouse contesting a support award (as the case may be) is capable of working but is unemployed or underemployed,” which is obviously the case here.  (Fam. Code, § 4331; Marriage of Stupp & Schilders (2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 907, 913; Hogoboom & King, Cal. Practice Guide Fam. L. (TRG 2024) Ch. 6-B, § 6:846.) 

In order to rebut Petitioner’s showing, Respondent would have to persuade the Court that the proposed vocational examination is inappropriate, prejudicial or harmful in some way that defeats Petitioner’s right under the statute to conduct discovery in this manner.

Either way, if ordered, Petitioner shall bear all costs of the evaluation and the Court will reserve jurisdiction over allocation and imposition on Petitioner of the necessary expenses and costs of further counseling, retraining or education for Respondent, in addition to whatever is awarded for spousal support.  (Fam. Code, § 4331(f).)