June 13, 2021

A A A
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 14, 2021


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 J. Richard Distaso in Department #13: 

FL-18-002775 – REED v. NORTON

Respondent’s Request for Order re “Change Jurisdiction”—HEARING REQUIRED.

No order shortening time was granted and Respondent’s proof of service indicates mail service on May 26, 2021 for Petitioner’s address in the state of Minnesota.  Accordingly, notice and service are insufficient.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 1005(b) [16 court days plus 10 calendar days for mail service within United States but outside California].) 


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

459274 – CUELLAR v. ROMERO

Respondent’s Request for Order (RFO) re Change of Venue – APPEARANCE REQUIRED

The parties are invited to appear and discuss the propriety of changing venue to Alameda County.

FL-19-001641 SINGH v. SINGH

Petitioner’s request for order (RFO) re: omitted asset- APPEARANCE REQUIRED

The court finds no proof of service of the RFO, and appearance is necessary to see if petitioner accepts service and/or if petitioner agrees to the relief requested.


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

FL-19-002694 USACHEV v. USACHEV

Petitioner’s request for order (RFO) compelling responses to discovery– APPERANCE REQUIRED

The court finds no proof of service of the RFO.  The parties are invited to appear to see if respondent will consent to service.  In addition, while the court intends to order responses to the outstanding discovery once the service issue is resolved, the parties are invited to appear to discuss the propriety of sanctions. 

453241 HARRIS v. HARRIS

Respondent’s request for order (RFO) to set aside order- GRANTED

The court agrees to look again at the request to terminate spousal support that was made in the responsive declaration to the RFO that was heard on March 2, 2021.


Last updated: June 11, 2021 12:40 PM