February 23, 2020

Family Law Tentative Ruling Announcements

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: February 24, 2020                               

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


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


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

FL-19-000035 MOJICA v. MOJICA- Petitioner’s request for order (RFO) re: enforcement of judgment- DENIED without prejudice

While the court agrees with petitioner that Family Code section 290 allows her to use the enforcement of judgments law (EJL) to enforce the equalization payment she is owed under the June 18. 2019 judgment, petitioner has filed an RFO rather than submitting a writ which the court could consider adjudicating under the EJL.  The court denies petitioner’s RFO without prejudice to petitioner’s ability to submit the actual paperwork needed to perfect a writ or other enforcement mechanism under the EJL.

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

FL-19-000085– KINERSON V. KINERSON Attorney Bouma’s Motion to Be Relieved  – GRANTED conditionally

Although counsel did not file or serve the mandatory proposed order (Judicial Council Form MC-053) (Cal. Rules of Ct., Rule 3.1362(d),(e)), the motion to be relieved as counsel otherwise appears procedurally proper.  That motion is granted, but the court “delay[s] the effective date of the order relieving counsel until proof of service of a copy of the signed order on the client has been filed with the court.”  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(e).)  

456876 CAREY V. CAREY Respondent’s request for order (RFO) regarding appointment of an elisor— APPEARANCE REQUIRED

The court notes the January 30, 2019 personal service alleged in the January 31, 2020 proof of service provided only 15 court days’ notice of the hearing date given the judicial holidays on February 12 and 18, 2020, when 16 days’ notice is required.  (Code Civ. Proc., §1005, subd. (b).)  The parties are to appear to obtain a new hearing date.  Once proper service has occurred and  the court can reach the merits, the court is likely to grant the request for appointment of an elisor.  Respondent has provided a copy of the document he needs signed in accordance with Local Rule 7.05.2, and he has also sufficiently demonstrated petitioner’s unwillingness to sign without judicial assistance.  However, the court advises respondent that he “must arrange for a notary public to be present when the elisor signs the document” as required by Local Rule 7.05.2.