Skip to main content
Skip to main content.

Request

a fine reduction for your eligible infraction offense using the new MyCitations tool.

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 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 22, 2024


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

FL-23-002067 – JACKSON VS JACKSON

Petitioner’s Request for Order re “Sell Family Residence,” etc.—HEARING REQUIRED.

This is a continued hearing.  It appears that the request regarding the 1972 Chevrolet Pickup Truck has been resolved or is moot.  Likewise, this appears to be the case with the request regarding the marital residence because Respondent is not opposed to sale provided that sufficient time before listing and sale is extended in order to conduct repairs necessary to obtain full value and as short a time on market as possible.  (Respondent’s Supplemental Declaration.)  The Court will reserve jurisdiction over the question of attorney’s fees and costs until disposition of the marital residence.  Counsel are to meet and confer prior to the hearing as to a reasonable time for repairs to be completed and any other disputes that are within the scope of the pending order request.  (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 5.98.)


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:

THERE ARE NO TENTATIVES.


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

FL-19-002701 – WHITTAKER VS GRAY

Petitioner’s Request for Order re Enforce Judgment, etc.—HEARING REQUIRED.

The Court finds that proof of service is on file and reflects valid and timely individual mail service of Respondent as required.  (Fam. Code, § 215(a).)  Respondent did not file a Responsive Declaration or written opposition.  Consequently, the Court is inclined to grant the requested relief. 

However, a final judgment is already an “order” that the parties are bound to comply with and a further order to comply by the Court would be redundant.  That said, Petitioner’s claims all relate to that part of the judgment dealing with division of pension plans and this has not been accomplished due to Respondent’s non-cooperation. 

Accordingly, the Court will not further delay proceedings by again ordering Respondent’s cooperation and, instead, finds good cause to appoint the clerk of the Court as elisor to sign the QDRO and other necessary papers on Respondent’s behalf.  But Petitioner must first submit a proposed order with the exact documents to be signed attached to it for review and approval by the Court.  (Local Rules, rule 7.08(A).)  Petitioner is free to use all the means to obtain information provided by the Civil Discovery Act if documents or other information has not been provided by Respondent.  (Fam. Code, § 218.)  And the Court will reserve jurisdiction over the issue of monetary sanctions against Respondent for the necessity of Petitioner having to file post-judgment motions to obtain Respondent’s compliance.



Was this helpful?

This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.