Family Law Tentative Ruling Announcement
Date: November 3, 2014
If the Tentative Ruling in your case is satisfactory, you need not appear at the scheduled time, the ruling becomes final, and the prevailing party prepares the order.
However, if you are not satisfied with the Tentative Ruling, and wish to appear and argue the matter, YOU MUST NOTIFY the Clerk’s office and opposing counsel of your intent before 4:00 p.m. TODAY.
When doing so, you must indicate as to which issue(s) and/or motion(s) a hearing is being requested. If requesting a hearing for clarification of tentative ruling, specify what matter(s) and/or issue(s) need clarification.
You may request a hearing by calling: (209) 530-3107 prior to 4 p.m. - OR- by e-mailing at FAMLAW.TENTATIVES@stanct.org Email requests must be made prior to 4pm AND confirmed by return e-mail. If you do not receive confirmation e-mail from the clerk, you MUST call (209) 530-3107 to request your hearing.
The following are the tentative ruling cases calendared before Judge Robert B. Westbrook in Department #9:
THERE ARE NO TENTATIVES.
The following are the tentative ruling cases calendared before Judge Joseph R. Distaso in Department #13:
THERE ARE NO TENTATIVES.
The following are the tentative ruling cases calendared before Judge Jack M. Jacobson in Department #14:
458975 - LEUNG VS. SMITH
Petitioner’s Request for Order Finding California to be an Inconvenient Forum – DENIED without prejudice. The file does not contain proof of service for Petitioner moving papers. The motion is also denied because the supporting declaration fails to address each of the factors set forth in Family Code § 3427 (b) (1)-(8).
694734 - SCHULKE VS. SCHULKE
Respondent’s Request for Order Setting Aside Default – DENIED without prejudice. Although the file contains proof of service for Respondent’s moving papers, the service is not sufficient. Respondent’s moving papers sought an order requiring Petitioner’s personal appearance at the hearing. For this reason, Respondent was required to personally serve Petitioner with her moving papers. Respondent will need to either re-file her Request for Order and personally serve Petitioner or re-file her Request for Order without the request that the Court order Petitioner’s appearance at the hearing, in which case mail service would be sufficient.
435644 - BLANCO VS. HAVILAND
Petitioner’s Motion for New Trial – DENIED pursuant to Rule 3.1600(b). The Supporting Declarations and Memorandum of Points and Authorities were not timely filed.
This ruling is not subject to the tentative ruling procedure that permits a party to request a hearing. Pursuant to the above rule, the Court is exercising its discretion to deny the motion for new trial without a hearing on the merits.
A hearing date was mistakenly set by the Clerk’s Office when petitioner filed a Request for Order. Rather, the Notice of Intent to Move for New Trial should have been filed as a separate document. Pursuant to CCP § 661, only after the time has expired to file counter affidavits shall the trial judge designate the time for oral argument, if any, to be had on said motion.
In light of the procedural defect, the motion is denied and no hearing is to be held on the merits. The Court will issue a formal minute order to reflect this ruling. The hearing set for 11-3-14 is vacated.
The following are the tentative ruling cases calendared before Judge Loretta Murphy Begen in Department #25:
435045 - ELIAS VS. ELIAS
Respondent’s Request for Order Re: Production of Financial Documents – DENIED without prejudice. The file does not contain proof of service for Respondent’s moving papers, and it appears Respondent has filed an identical Request for Order that is set for hearing on December 15, 2014. Finally, the Court notes that Respondent’s moving papers do not allege that he served Petitioner with discovery requests seeking the information at issue.