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 s 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.
The following are the tentative ruling cases calendared before Judge Alan Cassidy in Department #11:
FL-20-000632 – PALACIOS VS PALACIOS
Petitioner’s Request for Order re “Re-Open Judgment,” etc.— DENIED, without prejudice.
There is no proof of service on file as required. (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 5.94(b).) This is a post-judgment request and must be served individually on the party pursuant to Family Code section 215 or else the Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the matter.
FL-23-001062 – MCBETH VS MCBETH
Attorney for Petitioner’s Motion to Be Relieved— DENIED, without prejudice.
The attorney’s declaration on a motion for involuntary withdrawal and relief as counsel of record must be filed and served using the mandatory Judicial Council form declaration, MC-052. Counsel instead filed a non-conforming declaration on pleading paper. (See, Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.1362(c).) If counsel appears and Petitioner either does not appear or appears and has no objection, the Court may waive this violation if good cause is demonstrated and granting relief is unlikely to cause prejudice to Petitioner or to delay proceedings. Otherwise, counsel will need to file a new and procedurally proper motion to be relieved.
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-20-000712 – BRADSHAW VS BRADSHAW
Petitioner’s Request for Order re Compel Responses, etc.— DENIED, without prejudice.
There is no proof of service on file as required. (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 5.94(b).)
Moreover, while counsel for Petitioner argues that the responses served by Respondent, and the objections made, were meritless, this unilateral and self-serving allegation does not, ipso facto , convert a motion to compel further responses into a motion to compel for non-response. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310(a)(3) [motion for order compelling further response where objection without merit or too general]; see, Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 405-406 [responses are “legally invalid,” i.e., tantamount to non-response where no verification provided and responses were untimely, otherwise motion is to compel further response and 45-day time limit obtains].)
Consequently, this allegation does not alleviate Petitioner from complying with the requirement to (a) file and serve a meet and confer declaration accompanying the motion to compel and (b) file and serve a separate statement of disputed discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2031.310(b)(2), 2016.040 [meet and confer declaration]; Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.1345(a)(3),(b)(1) [separate statement not required if, and only if , “no response has been provided”].) Petitioner’s discovery motion complies with neither requirement and the Court is not inclined to entertain the merits without them. ( In re Marriage of Moore (2024) 102 Cal.App.5th 1275, 1297 [trial court has discretion to accept summary in lieu of separate statement].)
That said, if this dispute has not been resolved prior to the hearing, and the parties are amenable, in order to resolve this dispute and any other discovery disputes pending but unfiled, the Court is willing to set this matter for an Informal Discovery Conference (IDC) in the interest of judicial economy and invites the parties to be heard on the scheduling of an IDC. (Local Rules, rule 7.07.)
FL-24-002222 – MENDES VS MENDES
Continued Hearing on Respondent’s Request for Order re Enforcement, etc.— HEARING REQUIRED.
Based on Petitioner’s Responsive Declaration, it appears that there is a factual dispute as to whether Petitioner has obtained a ready buyer for the property and/or a loan application that will permit her to refinance the subject property so as to comply with the final judgment and incorporated “Stipulation for Judgment” providing that Petitioner shall refinance or otherwise remove Respondent’s name from the current mortgage on or before July 1, 2025. The only remedy for non-compliance with the deadline provided by the Stipulation for Judgment is that the property be listed for sale “promptly.” If Petitioner has already obtained a ready buyer and/or the application for refinance is presently pending, then an order to list the property would obviously be counter-productive and—assuming the Court finds Petitioner’s testimony and evidence on these statements to be true—most likely moot.
Accordingly, the parties are directed to meet and confer in good faith in an effort to resolve this dispute without a contested hearing, as required. (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 5.98(a).) Good faith, under this rule, means a meaningful change of position by one party in favor of the other party’s position, and vice versa. Both parties should understand that the Court’s role, once a judgment becomes final, is not to rewrite or amend the terms of the judgment, but only to interpret and enforce the agreement and judgment as-is.
Here, the word “promptly” that qualifies the Petitioner’s duty to list the property is deliberately indefinite and would therefore require the Court to interpret the meaning as implying a reasonable time for Petitioner to comply with this requirement. Moreover, all agreements contain an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, whether the parties put this in writing and agree to it or not. What this means in the context of this dispute is another matter for the Court to exercise discretion about in terms of resolving the dispute.
In sum, the Court is confident in the parties’ ability to act with good faith and fair dealing and resolve this matter without the need for a lengthy and contested evidentiary hearing, and welcomes any stipulations or agreements that are presented when the matter is called.
The following are the tentative ruling cases calendared before Judge Maria Elena Ramos-Ratliff in Department #25 :
FL-25-002598 – CUISON VS CUISON
Petitioner’s Request for Order re Spousal Support, etc.— HEARING REQUIRED, in part; DENIED, without prejudice, in part.
Support is not eligible for tentative ruling and a hearing is necessary.
The request for a sale order of the marital residence is denied without prejudice. Petitioner’s counsel offers no authority and, absent party agreement, the Court’s authority to order sale of a marital asset pendente lite is limited by statute to cases where it is demonstrated that the asset in question is at risk of loss or, alternatively, a proper motion is filed, served and granted to bifurcate the asset and conduct an early and separate trial as to its characterization, valuation and division. (Fam. Code, § 2108; Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 5.390.) Here, there is no agreement and no showing was made with regard to foreclosure or other risk of loss.
