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 matter.

Date: April 30, 2024

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

696446 – MARTINEZ VS MARTINEZ

Petitioner’s Request for Order re Elisor, etc.—GRANTED, conditionally, and unopposed.

The Court finds that the proof of service on file reflects presumptively timely and valid notice and service for a post-judgment order request.  (Fam. Code, § 215(a).)  Respondent filed no Responsive Declaration or written opposition.

Accordingly, the Court finds on the basis of Petitioner’s Declaration and the accompanying Points & Authorities that Respondent has not complied and/or cooperated in the preparation and signature of the subject QDRO as required by the judgment and that the clerk of the court is hereby appointed elisor to sign on Respondent’s behalf.

That said, this order granting the elisor request is conditioned upon Petitioner’s compliance with the Local Rules for elisor requests by the submission of a proposed order for the Court’s review and approval.  (See, Local Rules, rule 7.08(A).) 

FL-23-002657 – MENDOZA VS MENDOZA

Petitioner’s Request for Order re Child Custody, etc.—DENIED, without prejudice, in part; HEARING REQUIRED, in part.

The child custody and visitation requests were previously addressed and are not at issue here. 

The joinder request is denied without prejudice.  Permissive joinder (except for pension plans) must be made by the filing and service of the mandatory Judicial Council form Notice of Motion and Declaration for Joinder (FL-371), including service of the blank responsive declaration (FL-373), among other things.  (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 5.24(d).)  Petitioner did none of this.  If there is good cause to seek joinder based on the non-exclusive list of factors the Court must consider, then Petitioner’s counsel is free to file the appropriate motion.  (Id., rule 5.24(e)(2)(A)-(D).) 

The request for need-based attorney’s fees and costs requires a hearing.  That said, because the matter has been continued for further hearing on economic  issues on May 22, 2024, the Court is inclined to reserve jurisdiction and defer consideration of the request until then.

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-23-001720 – PERINO VS PERINO

Petitioner’s Request for Order re “Move Away Eval.,” etc.—CONTINUED, on party motion.

Pursuant to the Order on Request to Reschedule Hearing filed on April 29, 2024, the hearing has been continued to May 16, 2024, at 9:00 AM, in this Department.  Accordingly, the present hearing is vacated and no appearances are necessary.