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 10, 2025

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:

696012 –  AVELAR VS AVELAR

Respondent’s RFO for Change of Venue – Denied without prejudice.

Respondent has asserted adequate grounds for a change of venue, (CCP 397;  (Flanagan v. Flanagan, 641 (1959) 175 Cal.App.2d 641). However, Respondent’s RFO fails to demonstrate Proof of Service on Petitioner

Respondents’ RFO is therefore denied without prejudice.

FL-21-000329  – BATES VS BATES

Petitioner’s RFO Re; Set Aside Judgment on Reserved Issues – Denied without prejudice.

Notwithstanding the Court granting Petitioner a reissuance, there is still no Proof of Service of Petitioner’s RFO on file.  Petitioners’ RFO is accordingly denied without prejudice.

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-25-000321 – OLIVAR VS OLIVAR

Petitioner’s Request for Order re “Property Division,” etc.—DENIED, without prejudice.

Proof of service re Summons has not been filed, the Respondent has not filed a Response to the Petition, and there is no proof of service for this Request for Order, nor has Respondent filed a Responsive Declaration.  Accordingly, unless Respondent personally appears and waives notice and service, Petitioner must demonstrate good cause for a continuance of the hearing to effectuate valid service or else the matter will be dropped and a new order request must be filed and served.  If the latter, then the temporary orders will expire.

Assuming Respondent does appear and waives any objection, the Court is still likely to deny the property division request without prejudice.  This case was only recently filed and the Court does not divide the marital estate until the time of trial unless there is unreasonable market risk of loss or a proper bifurcation and early trial motion is granted.  That said, the parties are free to divide their community property as they see fit and, if Respondent appears and consents, then the Court will entertain an appropriate Stipulation and Order in accord with Petitioner’s request.