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.
As both threshold findings are required, this obviates the need to consider the second finding but, for future reference should the matter ever be renewed, the Court offers the following observations gleaned from the caselaw. The question of “sufficient means” is to be determined not by any marital standard of living test, as with spousal support, nor by any accustomed financial circumstances consistent with the child’s best interests within the parties’ ability to pay standard as with support of minor children, but rather by the likelihood that without court-ordered support the adult child will become a public charge. ( Marriage of Drake, supra, 53 Cal.App.4th at 1154.)
Lastly, it is important to note that, even if court-ordered adult child support is found to be necessary and appropriate, any payments ordered do not necessarily go to the party currently having physical custody of the adult child, but may in the Court’s discretion be ordered payable to a “special needs trust” or, in appropriate cases, to a conservator, guardian or legal representative of the adult child. It should therefore not be presumed that any money Respondent is ordered to pay for adult child support will be paid to Petitioner. Moreover, to the extent that Respondent is ordered to pay temporary spousal support and/or attorney’s fees and costs, those payments must be factored into any determination of Respondent’s ability to pay, along with a determination of Petitioner’s own ability to pay (or offsetting credit) of her co-equal duty to pay whatever amount is set for adult child support. (See, Hogoboom & King, Cal. Prac. Guide Family L. (TRG 2026) Ch. 6-A, § 6:56-6:57.)
In short, the Court is inclined to deny the request for adult child support without prejudice but, as noted infra , the Court’s statutory jurisdiction over the issue is reserved and may not be terminated as a matter of law.
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 Sarah Birmingham in Department #14:
THERE ARE NO TENTATIVES.
The following are the tentative ruling cases calendared before Judge Maria Elena Ramos-Ratliff in Department #25 :
FL-22-001258 – GOMEZ VS MARQUEZ
Respondent’s Request for Order re Set Aside, etc.— DENIED, without prejudice.
There is no proof of service on file, as required. As this matter is post-judgment, individual service of Petitioner is required. (Cal. Rules of Ct., rules 5.92, 5.94(b); Fam. Code, § 215(a).) But even assuming that Petitioner appears and waives any objection to service, the Court is without authority to grant Respondent’s motion as a matter of law.
Petitioner filed this dissolution action on May 19, 2022. Petitioner filed Proof of Service of Summons on July 5, 2022, which averred personal service of Respondent on May 24, 2022. While Respondent alleges that his mailing address was other than as stated, and denies that he was ever personally served, the Proof of Service of Summons establishes presumptively valid and proper service absent proof to the contrary. Respondent’s declaration fails to offer any supporting evidence that specifically refutes the process server’s declaration, signed under penalty of perjury. However, assuming Respondent had done so—or does so at the hearing if Respondent appears—Respondent did not file this motion until July 23, 2026. While the Court may grant relief and set aside the entry of default, and the resulting default judgment, on grounds of mistake, surprise, inadvertence or excusable neglect, that motion must be both filed and served on the other party no later than six (6) months after the entry of default and/or the default judgment. (Code Civ. Proc., § 473(b); Arambula v. Union Carbide Corp. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 333, 341-342 [section 473(b) motion untimely where, although filed within 6-month deadline, it was not served during 6-month period].) The 6-month time limit on section 473(b) relief motions is jurisdictional, meaning that the Court has no authority to grant an untimely 473(b) motion no matter what grounds are asserted. ( Rappleyea v. Campbell (1994) 8 Cal.4th 975, 980 [no authority to grant untimely section 473(b) motion regardless of the underlying merits and whether or not there is a reasonable excuse offered for the delay in filing and serving the motion]; Hogoboom & King, Cal. Prac. Guide Family L. (TRG 2026) Ch. 16-A, § 16:47.)
Likewise, a motion to set aside may based—as Respondent claims here—on the lack of actual notice, but the outside time limit on this motion is 180 days after service of notice of entry of judgment, which in the case at bar occurred on August 18, 2022. (Code Civ. Proc., § 473.5(a); Trackman v. Kenney (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 175, 180, disapproved unrelatedly by California Capital Ins. Co. v. Hoehn (2024) 17 Cal.4th 207, 212.) While service of summons served by substitute service at an address where the opposing party knows the moving party does not reside may trigger an alternative outer time limit of two years, Respondent’s request does not satisfy the other procedural prerequisites for a motion under this statute. ( Id. ; Olvera v. Olvera (1991) 232 Cal.App.3d 32, 39; Hogoboom & King, supra , § 16:192 [affidavit supported by admissible evidence that lack of notice not due to moving party’s avoidance of service or inexcusable neglect, plus attachment of proposed responsive pleading].)
The Court must remain neutral and it is not the Court’s role to give legal advice or to consider legal authority not cited or relied upon by the parties. Accordingly, this Tentative Ruling is made without prejudice to any other grounds or statutes not expressly addressed. Respondent may wish to seek legal advice at his own expense, but is welcome to contact the Court’s Self-Help Center for free assistance with forms and procedures not requiring legal advice.
