July 22, 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: July 23, 2019                           

 


 

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

 

THERE ARE NO TENTATIVES

 


 

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

 

462793 - STANISLAUS COUNTY VS NAJERA

 

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

 

Defendant has not filed proof of service as to any other party.  (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 5.94(b).)  Even assuming service has been effected properly, Defendant’s only reason for transfer is his own convenience and that of the minor children who reside with him in the non-forum county.  However, the Court’s authority to change venue requires proof that doings so will advance the convenience of “witnesses,” as well as the “ends of justice,” but party convenience is not properly considered.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 397(c).)  Defendant offers nothing with respect to any witnesses who will be inconvenienced by testifying in this forum at the pending custody modification hearing.  That said, if all parties are in agreement, the Court may consider a stipulation to change venue given that the support order obtained by Plaintiff in this case has been registered in the non-forum county. 

 


 

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

 

THERE ARE NO TENTATIVES

 


 

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

 

Case No. 8009010 - Eric Barbosa vs. Belinda Barbosa

 

 

 

Petitioner’s Request for an Order (RFO) Setting Aside Dismissal – APPEARANCE REQUIRED.

 

Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b), provides that “[t]he court may, upon any terms as may be just, relieve a party or his or her legal representative from a judgment, dismissal, order, or other proceeding taken against him or her through his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.”  A motion for relief under this section must be brought within a reasonable time, not to exceed six (6) months from the date of dismissal. (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (b).) When the moving party promptly seeks relief and there is no prejudice to the opposing party, very slight evidence is required to justify relief.  (Austin v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist. (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 918, 930; Mink v. Superior Court (1992) 2 Cal.App.4th 1338, 1343.) 

 

Petitioner filed his first request to set aside the dismissal less than a month after the dismissal was entered; that request was dropped by the Court when Petitioner failed to appear for the hearing.  Petitioner’s second request was also filed within the six (6) month application period set out in section 473, subdivision (b). 

 

The Court is not convinced, without a hearing, that there is evidence of excusable neglect.  Petitioner has promised to appear and then has failed to appear.  At the last hearing where Petitioner appeared, he was told that he was to notify the court if there was any reason that he would not be in court.  But again, failed to appear, and has failed to appear on multiple occasions.

 

At the hearing, Petitioner shall be prepared to complete the remainder of the paperwork necessary to finish judgment.