May 21, 2018

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

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: 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 22, 2018                                                                                                                           

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:

8003998- ANAND V. ANAND

Respondent’s RFO re setting aside judgment—DENIED

On February 28, 2018, this court entered judgment of dissolution based on a marital settlement agreement in which the parties stipulated to custody and visitation orders regarding a minor child.  Respondent asserts she now has DNA test results purportedly showing that petitioner is not the father of this child.  Even if the receipt of these DNA results constitutes “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect” within the meaning of Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subd. (b), the court cannot set aside the judgment because of the DNA test results.  First, respondent has provided no information about the results other than a description of what they showed, so the court cannot assess whether the DNA test results respondent proffers are “genetic tests” meeting the requirements of Family Code sections 7551 and 7552.  Second, petitioner has not addressed Family Code section 7611.  Since the child was born during the parties’ marriage, subdivision (a) of that statute appears to apply and establish that petitioner is the child’s father.  The court lacks evidence from which it could conclude that this presumption can be rebutted under Family Code section 7612.  Finally, respondent has asked the court to make orders that could affect the rights of the alleged biological father, but this man has not been joined or even served.  (See, e.g., County of Los Angeles v. Sheldon P. (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 1337, 1343-1345.)

8008403 – BRATE V. GEORGE

Petitioner’s RFO re setting aside dismissal—DENIED, without prejudice.

The court finds no proofs of service of the summons, the petition, or petitioner’s current request for orders (RFO).  The court may not grant the RFO without notice to respondent.  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.92(f)(1).)

On the merits, petitioner is only entitled to relief from the court’s February 2, 2018 dismissal of her action if she shows that the dismissal occurred due to “her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.”  (Code Cv. Proc., § 473, subd. (b).)  Petitioner’s RFO indicates she “missed” the hearing at which her case was dismissed, but it provides no explanation as to why petitioner was not present.  Petitioner’s allegation does not carry her burden of demonstrating that mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect occurred.  (See, e.g., Bonzer v. City of Huntington Park (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 1474, 1478.)

Because of the above-identified issues, the court denies petitioner’s RFO without prejudice and with a suggestion that she seek assistance should she want to continue attempting to have her case reopened. The Self-Help Center offers free help to people who are representing themselves in court in a variety of legal matters.  Assistance is provided daily on a walk-in first-come, first-served basis.  Office Hours are Monday – Thursday, 8:00 a.m. to noon and 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m., and Fridays 1:00 pm to 4:00 pm.  Location:  800 11th Street, Room 220, Modesto, California.

The following are the tentative ruling cases calendared before Judge Loretta Murphy Begen in Department #25: