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: May 9, 2024

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

FL-21-001509 – FLORES VS FLORES - COURT’S REVIEW re FOAH of February 8, 2024—HEARING REQUIRED.

Any unresolved discovery matters may be set for an Informal Discovery Conference unless the Court rules otherwise.

FL-21-000922 – MONTES VS ALVAREZ - Petitioner’s Request for Order re Status Termination—MOOT.

A “Status Only” Judgment was entered on April 16, 2024.  Accordingly, the hearing is vacated as moot and no appearances are necessary.

FL-23-002653 – YOUNG VS YOUNG - Third-Party’s Motion re Joinder—HEARING REQUIRED.

The marital status of the parties was terminated by the judgment entered on April 30, 2024, which provides that Petitioner shall have sole legal custody and actual physical custody of the minor child, with Respondent to have specified visitation rights.  As such, Third-Party’s joinder request for grandparent visitation is governed by Family Code section 3104, and joinder may not be granted nor visitation allowed, without the parties’ consent or a long-cause hearing at which Third-Party must prove by clear and convincing evidence that court-ordered visitation over the objection of the parents is in the best interests of the minor child.  (Fam. Code § 3104(a)(2), (f); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.24(e)(1)(B); Local Rules, rule 7.08(B)(2); In re Marriage of Harris (2004) 34 Cal.4th 210, 222.)

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

FL-19-002927 GARCIA VS GONZALEZ - Pet’s RFO to Enforce Judgment – GRANTED, in part, DENIED, in part.

Pursuant to the Court’s dissolution judgment of March 8, 2023, Respondent is ordered to refinance the parties’ marital residence located at 6157 N. 5'" Ave., Oakdale, CA 95361 and pay Petitioner $70,000 as an equalizing payment, within sixty (60) days of the date of this order.

The Court declines to order the sale of said marital residence at this time. The court will set for review in 60 days.

FL-23-003394 GODINEZ VS GONZALEZ - Resp’s RFO for Change of Venue – CONTINUED, on the Court’s own motion.

In view of Respondent’s Request for Order to Quash Service of Petitioner’s Petition for Legal Separation on calendar for May 29, 2024, and the potentially dispositive effect on this matter, this matter is also continued to May 29, 2024.   

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

FL-18-001854 – CROCKER VS CROCKER - Continued Hearing re Consolidation—HEARING REQUIRED.

The Court intends to provide the parties and counsel with an Indicated Ruling at the hearing on the question of consolidation as to case Nos. FL-18-001854 and FL-23-003257, after which the parties and/or counsel may be heard on the Court’s tentative decision.

FL-22-003376 – DOMGAARD VS DOMGAARD - Respondent’s Request for Order re Reconsideration, etc.—DENIED, without prejudice.

A motion for reconsideration must be filed and served within ten (10) days after notice of entry of the order and must be based on new or different facts, circumstances or law that were not available in the exercise of reasonable diligence on or before the date of the hearing, all of which must be presented in an affidavit by the moving party.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 1008(a); see, Marriage of Hobdy (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 360, 365 [despite statutory exceptions, there is no blanket exemption in Family Law case from the mandates of section 1008].)  Respondent’s request is both untimely and fails to comply with the affidavit requirement.  That said, child custody and visitation matters are inherently modifiable up to the date of majority with an appropriate showing and this ruling does not preclude Respondent from attempting to do so.

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

THERE ARE NO TENTATIVES.