June 25, 2019

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: June 26, 2019                          

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:


Petitioner’s Request to Renew Restraining Order—DENIED, without prejudice.

On December 4, 2018, the Court ordered, inter alia, that “The entire case shall be transferred to Oregon to the county of Wife’s residence which is Clackamas.”  While Petitioner contends this order did not encompass the subject restraining order, Petitioner’s own pleadings concede that there is a pending action in Oregon, that the subject restraining order is enforceable therein, and the only harm identified by Petitioner should this Court decline to entertain Petitioner’s request, assuming arguendo the Court has jurisdiction to do so, is that the “guidelines” for a new restraining order under Oregon law are more “stringent” than those for renewal.  Although this explains, tactically, why Petitioner would desire to present the request in this forum, the Court does not see any reason why one party’s tactical advantage should be viewed as justification to disadvantage the other party after the Court has, based on the doctrine of forum non conveniens, already transferred the “entire case” to the state of Oregon.  (Fam. Code § 4327; FOAH of 12-4-18, p. 4, ¶ 4.)  Despite the merits of the request being irrelevant to the Court’s jurisdictional decision, the parties’ diametrically oppositional view of the facts abundantly demonstrates that the evidence, testimony and even potentially the governing law, will all be located or derived from the foreign state.  To the extent that Petitioner’s counsel in Oregon is offered as an “expert witness” to provide opinion testimony as to the existence, meaning and operation of Oregon law, the Court finds that there is no foundation for such an opinion: copies of the statute are not provided, no request for judicial notice has been made, and no interpretive or decisional law from the foreign jurisdiction is offered in support of the expert’s opinion.  (See, e.g., Evid. Code §§ 451 – 453; Fam. Code § 210; Cal. Rules of Ct., rules 5.2(d), 5.115.)  Accordingly, the declines to entertain Petitioner’s request and denies it without prejudice to any proceeding that Petitioner may elect in the more convenient and appropriate forum.

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


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