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.
The following are the tentative ruling cases calendared before Judge Alan Cassidy in Department #11:
696580 – BLAKE VS GAGE
Petitioner’s Request for Order re Transfer—DENIED, without prejudice.
The Court only has authority to transfer a case to another county Superior Court, and has no authority to transfer a case to another state. Under the UCCJEA, the Court has continuing “home state” jurisdiction until home state jurisdiction is established in another state and the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction under the UCCJEA in favor of the other state. To do so, there must first be an action involving child custody and visitation in the other state. If Respondent has failed to initiate such an action, then Petitioner must do so and advise the Court of the case number and the other state judge assigned to the matter. The Court may then communicate with the other state judge and decline further home state jurisdiction. Petitioner may wish to contact an attorney at her own expense, or else is welcome to bring this ruling to the Court’s Self-Help Center for assistance with legal forms and procedures.
FL-24-000470 – LOPEZ VS LOPEZ
Petitioner’s Request for Order re Spousal Support, etc.—HEARING REQUIRED, in part; DENIED, without prejudice, in part.
The spousal support request is not eligible for tentative ruling and requires a hearing.
The property division request is denied without prejudice. This case was recently filed. The parties are free to agree to the sale and disposition of their own community property, but if they cannot agree the Court does not adjudicate the marital estate until the time of trial unless either or both parties move to bifurcate an asset and demonstrate good cause for doing so. This requires a separate bifurcation request with the appropriate FL-315 attachment. (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 5.390.) Petitioner may wish to contact an attorney at her own expense, or else is welcome to bring this ruling to the Court’s Self-Help Center for assistance with legal forms and procedures.
The following are the tentative ruling cases calendared before Judge J. Richard Distaso in Department #13:
FL-20-001029 ZAPIEN VS ZAPIEN
Petitioner’s RFO to Compel Responses to Discovery – DENIED, without prejudice.
In view of Respondent’s responses comprising solely of objections to Petitioner’s propounded discovery, Petitioner’s Request for Order is properly to Compel Further Responses, which requires a prior meet and confer declaration, and a separate statement, none of which were attached hereto.( Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.290, 2030.300, 2031.300 and 2033.290)
Petitioner’s application is accordingly denied without prejudice
The following are the tentative ruling cases calendared before Judge Sweena Pannu in Department #14:
437989 – BROWN VS MARTINEZ
Respondent’s Request for Order re Change Venue—HEARING REQUIRED.
There is no dispute that venue was proper in this forum when the case was filed on May 11, 2010. Any objection to the propriety of venue when first filed was waived by the failure of Respondent to object. At this point, a change of venue is discretionary with the Court and that discretion requires Respondent to demonstrate that a change of venue will promote the convenience of witnesses and the ends of justice. (Code Civ. Proc., § 397(c).)
The fact that the Yolo County Department of Child Support Services has entered a judgment regarding parental obligations for the minor children and is enforcing child support orders in that forum does not alter the propriety of venue in this forum, nor does it provide additional authority beyond the discretionary venue statute. (Forster v. Superior Court (1992) 11 Cal.App.4th 782, 789 [trial courts have no authority to create judicial exceptions to the venue statutes].)
Short of substantial financial or medical hardship, a party’s individual convenience is not a factor supporting a change of venue under the discretionary venue statute. Respondent identifies no witnesses who are inconvenienced by testifying in this forum and does not identify any pending hearing or trial at which such witnesses would provide essential testimony. Certainly, the stability of the minor children’s placement, avoiding interruptions in their school and extra-curricular activities, etc., are matters that involve the ends of justice, but both grounds must be satisfied in order to justify changing venue at one party’s unilateral request who chose to leave the forum court’s venue.
A discretionary transfer motion must be supported by detailed affidavits or declarations setting forth the names of the witnesses expected to testify for both parties; the substance of their expected testimony; and the reasons why (i) their testimony at the current venue would be “inconvenient” and (ii) the “ends of justice” would be promoted by transfer to a different county. (Peiser v. Mettler (1958) 50 Cal.2d 594, 607; Tutor-Saliba-Perini Joint Venture v. Superior Court [declarations must consist of competent evidence, not hearsay or conclusions]; Hogoboom & King, Cal. Prac. Guide Family L. (TRG 2024) Ch. 4-C, § 4:131.)
The parties may be heard and the Court will then exercise its discretion based on the authorized grounds for transfer under section 397(c).
The following are the tentative ruling cases calendared before Judge David I. Hood in Department #25:
FL-21-002327 – FERNANDEZ VS FERNANDEZ
Petitioner’s Request for Order re “Renewed Motion,” etc.—HEARING REQUIRED, in part; GRANTED, in part.
The need-based request for Attorney’s Fees and Costs is not eligible for tentative ruling and requires a hearing.
Based on the persuasive arguments and thorough briefing of Petitioner’s counsel, the Court finds that the motion for renewal pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1008(b) is well-taken. The Court finds that despite the prior failed attempts of Petitioner, acting in propria persona, to seek adjudication of the omitted assets at issue, all of which were denied without prejudice and/or for insufficient evidence, the current renewal motion is predicated on “new or different facts, circumstances or law,” and is supported by a declaration that shows the previous order(s), by which judge they were made, and that the new or different facts and circumstances involved evidentiary matter that Petitioner, acting with reasonable diligence, was unable to procure in time for the prior hearings. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1008(b); Graham v. Hansen (1982) 128 Cal.App.3d 965, 969-970.)
Moreover, to the extent that the Court’s prior Statement of Decision reserved as to the automobiles and denied as to the subject real properties without prejudice, this arguably reflects the Court’s predecessor’s intent to entertain renewal provided sufficient evidence, i.e., the property deeds in question, could be obtained. (Weil & Brown, Cal. Prac. Guide Civ. Pro. Before Trial (TRG 2024) Ch. 9(I)-E, § 9:338 [denial of a motion “without prejudice” evidences the court's intent to allow the motion to be renewed at a later time, potentially without the necessity of showing new facts].)
That said, granting renewal is merely the first step of the process. And by doing so, the Court offers no view as to the merits of whether the subject assets qualify as “omitted” community property and, if so, whether the subject assets shall be divided equally or, upon a finding of good cause that the interest of justice so require, unequally. (Fam. Code, § 2556.) This will necessarily entail an evidentiary hearing and most likely a long-cause setting. The parties shall therefore appear to set the hearing, a settlement conference beforehand, and a briefing schedule for the bench trial.