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: 6/22/2026

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

THERE ARE NO TENTATIVES.

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: 

FL-25-003301 – MCNEELY VS MCNEELY

Respondent’s Request for Order re Motion to Quash, etc.—HEARING REQUIRED.

Proof of mail service of Petitioner is on file at the same address Petitioner listed on the petition.  Petitioner has not filed a Responsive Declaration or other opposition.  However, Respondent previously filed a motion to quash on the same grounds that was denied by the Court on March 16, 2026, for the reasons specified in the Court’s Findings and Order After Hearing (FOAH).  Ordinarily, a party may not file a new motion seeking the same orders that were previously denied, i.e., a “renewal,” without demonstrating by affidavit “what new or different facts, circumstances, or law are claimed to be shown.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 1008(b).)  Respondent did not do so.

That said, Respondent attaches a file-marked document purporting to be a family law Judgment (FL-180) signed on April 20, 2026, by Commissioner Shaver of Merced County Superior Court, that terminates the marital status of the parties to this action effective August 23, 2026.  The case here was filed on December 25, 2025, but Respondent was not served with petition and summons until January 13, 2026, according to the Proof of Service of Summons on file. It is not clear from Respondent’s attachments when Petitioner was served with process in the Merced County case, but the judgment entered clearly resulted from taking Petitioner’s default without an agreement, i.e., a pure default.  As before, Respondent has not provided properly certified or authenticated records and, without notice and opportunity to be heard, the Court may not take judicial notice of these documents on its own motion. (Evid. Code, §§ 452(d), 455(a).)  Accordingly, the Court hereby gives notice to all parties that it intends to do so and will allow the parties to be heard.  If, in fact, a valid judgment has been entered in the Merced County action, and marital status has already been terminated, then that renders a legal separation petition moot as a matter of law. 

Lastly, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause to Petitioner for the failure to appear at the Case Management Conference of June 5, 2026, and for failure to prosecute this action as required, and to appear and explain why the case at bar should not be dismissed.  That hearing is set for the same date and time as Respondent’s Request for Order.  Consequently, if Petitioner does not appear, or fails to show good cause to the contrary, then the Court will dismiss this case and Respondent’s Request for Order will then be dropped as moot. 

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

FL-22-000365 – RAMOS VS RAMOS

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

Petitioner was granted an Order Shortening Time (OST) and the Court mandated personal service of Respondent.  Moreover, the matter is post-judgment and therefore valid and timely individual party service of Respondent is jurisdictional.  (Fam. Code, § 215(a).) 

If Petitioner does not appear and demonstrate good cause to continue the hearing to effectuate service, then the matter will be dropped and the temporary orders that were granted shall expire.

That said, if both Petitioner and Respondent personally appear, and Respondent expressly waives any objection to notice and service, then the Court may entertain the merits.  In that case, the Court previously granted Petitioner’s request to order sale of the family home and ordered spousal support payable by Respondent to Petitioner in the amount of $500/month.  (Findings and Order After Hearing [FOAH], 6/2/2025, p. 2.)  Then, after this, the parties came before the Court on September 3, 2025, and the Court approved the parties’ stipulation to change the prior orders so that, instead of sale, Petitioner would refinance the family home to buy out Respondent’s interest and would retain exclusive possession in the meantime.  (FOAH, 9/3/2025, p. 2.)  Petitioner’s declaration does not explain, other than claiming “financial hardship,” why the refinancing has not occurred and does not offer explanation as to the material change of circumstance that justifies modifying the permanent spousal support order currently in place. Should the merits be reached, these matters will need to be addressed by Petitioner.