August 20, 2017

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

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: 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: August 21, 2017

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 Valli K. Israels in Department #13:


Respondent’s Request for Order re Child Support, etc.—HEARING REQUIRED, in part; DENIED, in part.

Respondent’s requests regarding support are ineligible for tentative ruling and require a hearing.  (Stan. Cnty. Local Rules, rule 7.05.1)  Respondent’s request to set aside his default offers no authority, does not assert any of the statutory grounds for relief, and is outside the six (6) month time limit to do so.  (Cal. Civ. Proc. §473(b).)  Respondent’s claim of defective service is unsupported and contradicted by the sworn proof of service of summons, which Respondent fails to rebut.  Moreover, Respondent’s appearance without objection in open court on April 14, 2017, and the filing of a motion seeking wide-ranging affirmative relief, both constitute general appearances waiving any objection to service of summons.  (Fam. C. §2012; Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 5.62(a); Zaragoza v. Superior Court (1996) 49 Cal.App.4th 720 [defective service waived by general appearance].)  The motion to set aside default is therefore DENIED.

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


1. Respondent’s Request for Order to Appoint Elisor –DENIED, without prejudice.

Respondent’s request is premature in that there is no indication that the subject insurance payment has been issued or received.  The Court cannot appoint an elisor until it has first ordered that the Petitioner endorse any insurance proceeds, after which time Respondent would need to comply with the requirements set forth in Stan. Cnty Local Rule 7.05.2.  Moreover, the handling of any insurance proceeds is dependent upon a determination as to amount of damage and the apportionment of the same at trial, or as otherwise agreed by the parties.  Consequently, the Court orders that any insurance proceeds be held in trust pending further proceedings on these issues.

2. Petitioner’s Request for Order Re Bifurcation of Marital Status (continued from 8-16-17) – HEARING REQUIRED.

Petitioner submitted a Supplemental Declaration in support of his request but failed to address the protective conditions required by Fam. Code §2337.  (FL-315; CRC 5.390.)  In addition, no proposed order was submitted regarding protective conditions.  (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 5.390(a) (b); FL-347.)  Notwithstanding this, bifurcation and early termination of marital status are favored and no opposition has been submitted by Respondent.  Provided Petitioner cures the stated deficiencies, the Court is inclined to grant the request.


Respondent’s Request for Order re Change of Venue –DENIED.

No proof of service is on file as required by Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 5.94(b).  Unless the parties appear, reissuance will be required.

The motion for change of venue is governed by the provisions of Code Civ. Proc. §397(c).  Moving party must show that both the convenience of witnesses and the ends of justice will be promoted by the requested change. The parties’ convenience is not considered, absent extenuating circumstances such as illness or physical disability. (Borba v. Toste (1942) 52 Cal.App.2d 591.)  Moreover, the current custody order provides for sole legal and physical custody to Petitioner, who remains a resident of Stanislaus County.


The following are the tentative ruling cases calendared before Judge Loretta Murphy Begen in Department #25: