Skip to main content
Skip to main content.

Election Notice:

See this notice for election related requests for judicial relief.

Traffic

payment portal issue: The Court is aware of occasional issues with the online traffic payment system. If you are unable to pay online, you can mail in a check or money order, or you can pay in person. 

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: November 6, 2024


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 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-24-001308 – SOLARIO VS SOLARIO

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

The child custody and visitation requests were mediated on October 15, 2024 and are not at issue in this hearing.

The child and spousal support requests are not eligible for tentative ruling and a hearing is required.

Petitioner consents to the property control and exclusive possession of the marital residence requests provided Respondent is responsible for all expenses and encumbrances pendente lite.  The Court is inclined to grant this temporary order subject to these conditions, especially since Respondent contends the residence is her separate property.

Petitioner also purportedly consents to the order request for payment of Respondent’s community property share of the parties’ rental property, but alleges that he has paid Respondent more than this amount on a monthly basis.  Respondent disputes the amount of net income from this property and contends that claimed expenses for maintenance are not legitimate given the “substantial improvements” made to the property in 2021 and 2022.  This dispute raises a factual question for the Court that may require a hearing.  However, the factual dispute is one that the Court believes would likely be removed if Respondent provides the requested documentation regarding the disputed expenses.

Accordingly, counsel for both parties are directed to meet and confer on this issue, and to exchange any and all documents upon which material reliance would be placed at the hearing.  (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 5.98(a),(b).)  If there is a discovery dispute involved, or any discovery matters that are likely to result in law and motion, counsel are advised that the Court is amenable to referring any such matters to an Informal Discovery Conference.  (Local Rules, rule 7.07.)

FL-24-001786 – SHELTON-ALLEN VS ALLEN

Respondent’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 control request regarding the “pink slips” for the personal property vehicles involves a factual dispute that requires a hearing.  According to Petitioner’s Responsive Declaration, the subject pink slips are in Respondent’s possession, or will be via Petitioner’s Preliminary Declarations of Disclosure, as o the date of the hearing.  Moreover, Petitioner alleges a separate property interest in two of the subject vehicles.  Without an order for separate and early trial, the Court does not characterize, value or divide the marital estate until the date of trial.  That said, the parties are free to stipulate to the disposition of their own community property and counsel are therefore invited to meet and confer as to whether these disputed items may be resolved without a contested hearing.  (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 5.98(a).) 

This leaves Respondent’s request for a “forensic accounting and business evaluation.”  This request is denied without prejudice.  Respondent filed this order request before he was represented.  As his current counsel of record has undoubtedly advised him, the retention of experts and the conduct of discovery is for each party and their counsel to pursue without court intervention unless and until a dispute arises.  Without a stipulation for a joint expert, the Court does not normally involve itself with discovery matters, aside from enforcement and—when necessary and appropriate—the appointment of an Evidence Code section 730 expert where the parties’ retained experts are diametrically opposed and a “tie-breaker” independent expert is desired.  As Petitioner’s Responsive Declaration notes, the case is still in the early stages of litigation and the necessity of expensive and time-consuming expert witness discovery has yet to be ascertained.  That said, Respondent is free to retain whatever experts Respondent desires and to obtain whatever information is within the scope of discovery.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2017.010, 2034.010 et seq.)

FL-24-001952 – CASTRO VS CASTRO

Petitioner’s Request for Order re Sale Order—GRANTED, and unopposed.

The Court finds that proof of service of Respondent is on file and demonstrates presumptively valid and timely personal service of Respondent, in compliance with post-judgment procedures.  (Fam. Code, § 215(a).) 

Respondent is in default and an uncontested judgment was entered on October 16, 2024 with Notice of Entry filed and served on even date.  Respondent did not file any Responsive Declaration or other opposition.

Accordingly, pursuant to the final judgment, and Petitioner’s corroborated and undisputed allegation that the subject real property is at risk of foreclosure, the Court orders that said residence be sold and the proceeds be deposited upon close of escrow into a blocked, FDIC-insured, interest bearing bank account and that the proceeds not be disbursed therefrom without further order of this Court.

Once escrow closes and the funds are deposited, Petitioner may request that the proceeds be distributed as per the judgment, including satisfaction of the equalization payment as provided in the judgment.  Petitioner may unilaterally select the listing agent and Respondent shall cooperate with signing any documents necessary to the listing and sale of the subject property.  If Respondent fails and refuses to do so, Petitioner may file and serve an ex parte request for the Court to appoint the Clerk as elisor to sign on Respondent’s behalf but must comply with the Local Rules for elisors.  (Local Rules, rule 7.08(A).) 

The parties may wish to seek legal advice at their own expense, but may also contact the Court’s Self-Help Center for free assistance with legal forms and procedures.