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 matters own motion, the Court orders Respondent to comply within thirty (30) days of this ruling and admonishes Respondent that the failure to do so may result in the striking of the Response and entry of Respondent’s default.

Date: March 04, 2025

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

FL-23-000864 – MELLO VS MELLO

Respondent’s Request for Order re “Re-Open,” etc.—HEARING REQUIRED.

The death of Petitioner terminated the parties’ marital status automatically by operation of law.  That said, the Court retains jurisdiction over matters adjudicated and orders made prior to the Petitioner’s demise.  This is true notwithstanding the dismissal previously ordered.  Since characterization and division of the sale proceeds deposited with the Bank of Stockton never occurred, post-judgment of dismissal the Court may treat the funds as omitted assets pursuant to Family Code section 2556 and adjudicate the proceeds.  That appears to be the bilateral agreement of both Respondent and Petitioner’s successor-in-interest.  However, for this to occur, Petitioner’s successor-in-interest must be substituted in and for Petitioner as the real-party-in-interest and, if the successor is acting in a representative capacity for a trust, estate or other entity, then the successor must be represented by counsel.  The parties and Respondent’s counsel are requested to meet and confer on these matters.

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:

THERE ARE NO TENTATIVES.

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

FL-25-000125 – ZOBEL VS STRATTON

Petitioner’s Request for Order re Paternity, etc.—DENIED, without prejudice.

There is no proof of service on file.

FL-25-000364 – NAVARRO VS CERVANTEZ

Petitioner’s Request for Order re Spousal Support, etc.—HEARING REQUIRED.

Based on Respondent’s Responsive Declaration, it appears there is an agreement for a sale order as to the marital residence.  If so, the parties may submit a stipulation and order to this effect.  Regarding spousal support, absent an agreement, a hearing is necessary.