Family Law Tentative Rulings

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 3:30 p.m. daily.

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: April 29, 2024

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

FL-22-002440 – MEYERS VS MARTIN

Respondent’s Request for Order re Change of Venue—HEARING REQUIRED.

The following are the tentative ruling cases calendared before Judge J. Richard Distaso in Department #13:

THERE ARE NO TENTATIVES.

The following are the tentative ruling cases calendared before Judge Sweena Pannu in Department #14:

FL-20-001594 – PLEITEZ VS PLEITEZ

Petitioner’s Request for Order re Motion for Reconsideration—DENIED.

A motion for reconsideration must be based on new or different facts, circumstances or laws that were not available at the hearing and that could not have been obtained exercising reasonable diligence prior to the hearing.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 1008(a); Yolo County Dept. of Child Support Services v. Myers (2016) 248 Cal.App.4th 42, 50.)  Petitioner’s alleged factual basis for the motion all concern matters that were capable of being addressed at the mediation or that might have been asserted as the basis for an objection upon which a long-cause hearing would have been set as a matter of right.

That said, Respondent’s Responsive Declaration does not contest the idea of revisiting some of the custody and visitation matters of which Petitioner complains.  Because child custody and visitation is inherently modifiable, and because the orders in question are pendente lite or “temporary” orders, if both parties appear and wish to be referred to further mediation, the Court will consider doing so as section 1008 binds only the parties and not the Court.

The following are the tentative ruling cases calendared before Judge David I. Hood in Department #25:

453402 – MARTIN VS MARTIN

Respondent’s Request for Order re “Enforce Judgment,” etc.—HEARING REQUIRED.

The Court finds that proof of service is on file and demonstrates personal service of Petitioner in compliance with Family Code section 215.

Pursuant to the Findings and Order After Hearing of March 19, 2024, the Court has already addressed spousal support. 

The parties’ Judgment/Marital Settlement Agreement is already an “order” sufficient to require the parties’ compliance and cooperation in effectuating the terms. Respondent does not specify what orders she is requesting to enforce the judgment and she is invited to appear and explain her request further.  Petitioner is also invited to appear and offer his position.