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: July 15, 2025

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

FL-25-001216 – LOURENCO VS LOURENCO

Petitioner’s Request for Order re Spousal Support, etc.—HEARING REQUIRED.

The child custody and visitation requests were mediated on June 4, 2025, and are not at issue in this continued economic hearing.

Support and need-based attorney’s fees and costs require a hearing.

This leaves disposition of proceeds from sale of the marital residence.  Respondent opposes deposit into counsel for Petitioner’s attorney-client trust account and, instead, asks that each spouse be paid their share directly from escrow. The problem with Petitioner’s request, as with all IOLTA accounts, is that the interest (if any) is paid to the State Bar but it is the Court’s role to maintain and preserve the marital estate pendente lite.  The problem with Respondent’s request is that there does not appear to be any agreement from Petitioner.  The parties are free to dispose of their community property as they see fit, but absent an agreement then disposition of proceeds will need to account for matters of reimbursement, debt, etc., not to mention the overall equalization and division of the marital res. 

Accordingly, counsel shall meet and confer in good faith in an effort to resolve any disputes concerning temporary support, initial fees and cost award, and disposition of sale proceeds.  (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 5.98(a).)   

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

693736 IRMO JIMENEZ

Petitioner’s Request for Order re Appointment of Elisor – HEARING REQUIRED.

The Court finds that Petitioner has demonstrated good cause for the appointment of an Elisor to sign the Qualified Domestic Relations Order requested herein. However, the Petitioner has not served the Respondent.

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:

THERE ARE NO TENTATIVES.