September 21, 2019

A A A
Family Law Tentative Ruling Announcements
Print

Please note that 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 1:30pm daily at www.stanct.org.

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: September 23, 2019                            


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

FL-19-001917 - MADEWELL VS MADEWELL

Respondent’s Request for Order re Change of Venue—DENIED, without prejudice.

Based on the moving and opposing papers, it appears that Respondent filed and served proof of service before the filing of the motion itself and that the hearing date and time were not included in the papers that were served.  If so, the Court has no jurisdiction to proceed and the motion will be denied without prejudice.  Otherwise, Respondent’s cites the discretionary venue authority of Code of Civil Procedure section 397, subd. (c), which requires proof that transfer from the forum county will promote the convenience of witnesses and the ends of justice.  Assuming the veracity and credibility of Respondent’s factual allegations, the ends of justice factor is readily apparent.  However, Respondent has failed to identify the names of any witnesses she intends to proffer, the contested and pending hearing or trial at which they are expected to testify, the substance and relevance of their testimony, and their actual location or other factual circumstance rendering appearance for trial in this forum substantially inconvenient. (Peiser v. Mettler (1958) 50 Cal.2d 594, 607; Tutor-Saliba-Perini Joint Venture v. Superior Court (1991) 233 Cal.App.3d 736, 744 [discretionary venue motion must be supported by detailed affidavits identifying witnesses, substance of testimony, and reasons for hardship]; Hogoboom & King, Cal. Pract. Guide Fam. Law (TRG 2019) Ch. 4-C, § 4:131.) 

Of course, Petitioner presumably has personal knowledge with respect to Respondent’s allegations.  Prior to insisting on venue in this forum, it may behoove Petitioner and Petitioner’s counsel to consider the Court’s discretion to impose the costs of transfer, and attorney’s fees as sanctions, in the event it is the Court’s finding that venue was improperly selected by Petitioner in the first instance.  (See, e.g., Hogoboom & King, supra, at § 4:146.)

8003148 – CAZAREZ VS TORO

Respondent’s Request for Order re Change of Venue—DENIED, without prejudice.

Respondent has failed to file proof of service as required.  (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 5.94(b).) Unless Petitioner appears and waives notice, Respondent will have to file another motion before the Court will consider the additional grounds that have been raised.

The Self-Help Center offers free help to people who are representing themselves in Court in a variety of legal matters.  Limited assistance is available by email, except in confidential cases such as adoptions, paternity actions and those cases involving the Department of Child Support Services.  For the most effective assistance by email, please provide your full name, telephone number and case number (if you have one), along with a brief description of your problem. Responses can be expected within 3-4 business days.  Email: Self.Help@StanCt.org

8008970 – ROMANO-CRAWFORD VS CRAWFORD

 Petitioner’s Request for Order re “reopen”—DENIED, without prejudice.

 Petitioner has not demonstrated compliance with the Court’s orders from the hearing on August 19, 2019.  No renewed or re-filed motion will be entertained by the Court until Petitioner has demonstrated compliance.  Any further motion filed without doing so will be denied with prejudice. 


The following are the tentative ruling cases calendared before Judge Valli K. Israels in Department #13:

THERE ARE NO TENTATIVES


The following are the tentative ruling cases calendared before Judge Jack M. Jacobson in Department #14:

CRAWFORD V. DEROUEN - FL-19-001781

 Petitioner Kathy Crawford’s Petition for Grandparent Visitation and Request for Order Granting Grandparent Visitation are both DENIED. “[C]ourts have no power “to award grandparent visitation over the objection of both parents living together in a family unit” under [Family Code] section 3104.” Fenn v. Sherriff (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 1466, 1476.


 The following are the tentative ruling cases calendared before Judge Kellee Westbrook in Department #25:

THERE ARE NO TENTATIVES