Family Law Tentative Rulings
Family Law Tentative Ruling Announcements
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.
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 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-24-001151 – WALKER VS WALKER
Petitioner’s Request for Order re Dismissal—DENIED, without prejudice, in part; HEARING REQUIRED, in part.
Petitioner filed a Petition for Domestic Violence Restraining Order on May 1, 2024, and the Court granted a Temporary Restraining Order pending hearing on even date. Petitioner then filed a Petition for Dissolution on May 8, 2024. Child custody mediation occurred on May 23, 2024, and resulted in an order for joint legal custody of the parties’ minor children and sole physical custody to Petitioner. The following day, after hearing, the Court granted a Permanent Restraining Order (PRO) against Respondent valid until 2027. Petitioner has now filed the instant order request seeking to have the PRO terminated and her dissolution action dismissed because the parties “are working things out.”
However, there is no proof of service on file and while Respondent presumably is in agreement, the Court may not terminate a previously granted PRO after hearing without notice or hearing as to Respondent. Accordingly, unless Respondent personally appears and waives notice and service, Petitioner will either need to seek a continuance of the hearing as to the PRO or else file a new request.
As for the dissolution petition, there is no proof of service of summons on file and Respondent never filed a responsive pleading, nor was Respondent’s default ever entered. Accordingly, Petitioner does not require leave of court to voluntarily dismiss a dissolution action that she initiated and need only file the appropriate Judicial Council form and file it with the Clerk’s office. As such, the request to do so by court order is denied without prejudice.
The parties may seek legal advice at their own expense, but are welcome to contact the Court’s Self-Help Center for free assistance with legal forms and procedures.
The following are the tentative ruling cases calendared before Judge David I. Hood in Department #25:
FL-24-000988 – AGUINIGA VS AGUINIGA
Respondent’s Request for Order re Set Aside—GRANTED, and unopposed.
The Amended Petition was filed on June 21, 2024, and Petitioner filed proof of service of Summons as to the Amended Petition on July 3, 2024. When Respondent failed to appear and failed to file a timely responsive pleading by the Case Management Conference of September 13, 2024, the Court ordered that Respondent’s default be entered. However, Petitioner never served Notice of Entry of Default on Respondent and Petitioner did not file and serve the required property declarations and proposed default judgment packet. Accordingly, no default judgment has been entered. Proof of service for the present order request is on file and Petitioner has filed no Responsive Declaration or other opposition. Consequently, both on the grounds of inadequate due process and due to Respondent’s allegations of mistake, surprise, inadvertence and excusable neglect, the default is hereby set aside, conditioned upon Respondent’s filing and service of a responsive pleading with fifteen (15) days of this Order. (Code of Civ. Proc., §§ 473(b) & (d), 580.) If Respondent fails to do so, then the Order will be vacated and Respondent’s default will remain.