October 21, 2018

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: October 22, 2018                                 


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:

THERE ARE NO TENTATIVES


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

 FL-18-001022 – NELSON v. NELSON

Petitioner’s Request for Order (RFO) re Dismissal – DENIED without prejudice

The court finds no proof of service of the RFO.  Denial or reissuance will be required on that ground.  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.92(f).)

On the merits, California and Colorado should not simultaneously maintain dissolution actions involving the same parties.  “It is now well established that where two tribunals of this state have concurrent jurisdiction over the same parties and subject matter, the tribunal which first acquires jurisdiction of the parties is entitled to retain it exclusively. The other must respect the priority of the first and must desist from further proceedings so long as the matter is pending before the first. In applying this rule it is the tribunal where process is served first which has priority, regardless of which action was filed first.”  (Mungia v. Superior Court for Los Angeles County (1964) 225 Cal.App.2d 280, 283.)  In this case, the Colorado filings indicate that the parties want the Colorado court to handle any and all property division issues, and this court to handle custody, visitation and support.  I see no reason why this can’t happen.  Once service is established, the court is inclined to dismiss the request for dissolution in the California action and to convert the petition to one for custody and support of a minor child (FL-260). 

 

 


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

THERE ARE NO TENTATIVES