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: June 10, 2025

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

FL-23-000099 – MOYA VS CHAIREZ

Petitioner’s Request for Order re Child Custody, etc.—HEARING REQUIRED.

The child custody and visitation orders were mediated on May 27, 2025, and are not at issue in this hearing.  The current custody order provides for Petitioner (Father)’s sole legal and physical custody and Respondent (Mother) may not seek modification of this order until successful completion of eight (8) supervised visits.  The only remaining matter is Father’s request is to change venue to Monterey County, where he resides with the parties’ minor child.  Father offers no reason other than his convenience and any concerns over the minor child’s custodial situation have been ameliorated by the current custody orders.  But party convenience is not a basis for changing venue.  Rather, the Court has discretion to grant a change of venue when doing so will promote the convenience of witnesses and the ends of justice.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 397(c).)  As the current custody orders are only conditionally permanent, and remain subject to modification, it may be more convenient for any potential non-party witnesses testifying to appear in Monterey County, but the Court must factor in any prejudice to Mother and the best interests of the minor child.  As such, the parties are invited to appear and be heard on the matter.  If neither appears, the matter will be dropped or denied without prejudice.

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

FL-20-000156 – VAN EGMOND VS VAN EGMOND

Respondent’s Request for Order re Reconsideration, etc.—HEARING REQUIRED, in part; DENIED, without prejudice, in part.

The child custody and visitation requests are not eligible for tentative ruling and require a hearing.

The motion for reconsideration is denied without prejudice.  Respondent seeks reconsideration of the Court’s decision to accept the child custody mediator’s recommendation at the last mediation which occurred on February 13, 2025.  Among other things, Respondent asserts that insufficient time was accorded this matter due to interruptions and the shortened time for argument about the parties’ objections to the mediated order due to the Court’s impending noon recess.  Nothing in the moving papers approaches the requisite showing for a motion for reconsideration, i.e., new or different facts, circumstances or change of law that arose subsequent to the hearing or that could not have been obtained prior to the hearing in the exercise of reasonable diligence.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 1008(a).) 

That said, both parties are represented by experienced family law practitioners and are no doubt aware that—subject to the material change of circumstances rule given the post-judgment nature of the present order—child custody and visitation are inherently modifiable for the duration of the child (children)’s minority.  The parties objections to the mediator’s recommendations were heard and noted, and may be the subject of future proceedings in the absence of agreement.  Accordingly, even though statutory reconsideration does not bind the Court, the Court is disinclined to entertain carte blanche destabilization of the current parenting plans by overturning—rather than modifying in the usual course—the existing mediated custody orders.

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.