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: May 06, 2024

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

8000687 – VALVERDE VS HARVEY

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

The Court finds that proof of personal service by the Sheriff’s Civil Division is on flied and demonstrates presumptively valid and timely service on Respondent.  No responsive declaration or opposition has been filed by Respondent.  The County Child Support Order is currently registered out-of-county and, on the basis of Petitioner’s declaration and the case docket, the Court finds that the convenience of witnesses and the ends of justice will both be promoted by transfer of this action from this forum to the Superior Court of Butte County, California.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 397(c).)  The Court will reserve jurisdiction over the case and all orders until transfer is complete.  Petitioner shall bear all the costs of transfer as it is per his request.

FL-21-003183 – NILA VS NILA 

Third-Party’s Motion re Joinder, etc.—DENIED, without prejudice.

The proofs of service on file with the Court do not identify the party served and therefore fail to establish valid and timely notice and service.  Third-Party and/or the process server neglected to write or type in the name of the person served, i.e., No. 2 on the FL-330 form.  Moreover, this matter is post-judgment in a dissolution case in which the parties have joint legal and physical custody.  As such, their marital status has been terminated and the provisions of Family Code section 3104 govern Third-Party’s joinder request for grandparent visitation.  This means that, if either or both parents object, then the Court may not allow joinder until Third-Party establishes by clear and convincing evidence that court-ordered visitation should be allowed over the objection of the parent(s).  (Fam. Code, § 3104; Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 5.24(e)(1)(B); Local Rules, rule 7.08(B)(2).)  Third-Party is advised that, while she is free to file a new joinder motion, if she obtain the agreement of the parties to a reasonable visitation plan and the parties drop any objections they may have to court-ordered visitation, then all that is required is a stipulation and order to this effect approved by the Court, and Third-Party will then be joined to the action without the necessity of a hearing and allowed visitation as per the approved stipulation.  That, however, is a choice to be made by Third-Party, Petitioner and Respondent together.

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-23-000625 – AUSTIN-HASTON VS HASTON

Petitioner’s Request for Order re Elisor—HEARING REQUIRED.

This is a continued hearing.  Pursuant to the Findings and Order After Hearing of April 23, 2024, the Court granted “one continuance” for Respondent to seek the advice of counsel.  No substitution of attorney or notice of limited scope representation has been filed.  If Respondent has not done so, then the Court intends to confirm the prior tentative ruling in this matter.