February 21, 2018

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 www.stanct.org.

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: February 21, 2018

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


Petitioner’s Request for Order re Motion to Quash—STAYED; APPEARANCE REQUIRED.

Unlike Petitioner’s prior motion to quash, the present motion entails opposition that is supported by appropriate declarations asserting the alleged good cause for the requested subpoena duces tecum.  Petitioner’s first objection based on relevance is therefore insufficient to quash the subpoena in its entirety.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 2017.010; Gonzalez v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1539, 1546 [scope of discovery is broad and liberally construed].)  Petitioner’s second objection, that of the physician-patient privilege, as well as Respondent’s counter-arguments, fail to adequately address the nature and scope of the patient-litigant exception.  (Evid. Code §§ 996, 1016.)  In this regard, the burden initially rests on the patient to show that a given communication or record is not directly related to the issue allegedly tendered to the Court. (In re Lifschutz (1970) 2 Cal.3d 415, 436.)  It would be an abuse of discretion for the Court to rule on the exception without review in camera of the disputed records, something that neither party addresses.  (Manela v. Superior Court (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1139, 1151-1152.) 

Considering that there has been no discussion of a protective order, no showing as to the quantity and nature of the disputed records, and no discussion of the operative balancing test (see, e.g., Simek v. Superior Court (1981) 117 Cal.App.3d 169, 175; In re Daniel C.H. (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 814, 828; Karen P. v. Superior Court (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 908, 911), the Court finds the meet and confer efforts of both parties inadequate and the dispute to be resolvable by a “reasonable and good faith attempt.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2016.040; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.98.)  Any and all discovery proceedings are hereby STAYED; all deadlines to serve, respond or compel discovery shall be tolled pending the duration of the stay.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 2016.080(c)(2).)  Counsel are ordered to participate in an informal discovery conference in Department 11 to be set no later than thirty (30) days from the date of this order at the hearing.  (Id., (a).)  Counsel should be prepared to advise the Court of their availability for the conference.  The outcome of the conference will be without prejudice to any future or pending motions regarding discovery and the parties retain all rights with respect to independent stipulations regarding discovery.  (Id., (e), (f).)  The issue of sanctions is reserved.

The following are the tentative ruling cases calendared before Judge Valli K. Israels in Department #13


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

285950 – MUNOZ V MUNOZ

Respondent’s Request for Order re Property at 1811 Denver Street, Modesto – DENIED, without prejudice.

There is no proof of service on file.  (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 5.94(b).)  Unless Petitioner appears or proper service can be demonstrated, reissuance will be required.

Moreover, the issue appears to be MOOT as Judgment has been entered and there is no evidence in the Court’s file that Petitioner asserted any claim of community property interest in the subject property.  Property acquired during marriage by gift is the separate property of the acquiring spouse and can be conveyed without the other spouse’s consent.  (Fam. Code §770.)

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