October 17, 2017

A A A
Family Law Tentative Ruling Announcements
Print

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: October 17, 2017


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

8008600 - CULLY VS CULLY

Respondent’s Request for Order re Motion to Quash—STAYED AND CONTINUED.

In the case of two subpoenas duces tecum each requesting a single document category, and to which a single objection is asserted, the Court finds that attachment of the subpoenas satisfies the purpose of the separate statement, the preparation of which would simply enlarge the papers to no purpose.  While Respondent’s non-compliance is sufficient to deny the motion, it is discretionary.  (Mills v. U.S. Bank (2008) 166 Cal.App. 4th 871.)  Petitioner’s argument regarding the patient-litigant exception to the physician-patient privilege is not well-taken for two reasons.  First, Respondent has not “tendered” the issue simply by opposing Petitioner’s allegations.  (Evid. C. §996(a); Koshman v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 294, 297; Simek v. Superior Court (1981) 117 Cal.App.3d 169.)  Second, Respondent has not even asserted the privilege in opposition to the subpoenas at issue, instead relying on her constitutional right to privacy.  Even if the private information sought is directly relevant to the subject matter of the litigation, discovery should not be required without a balancing of the individual's privacy rights against the need for discovery. (Estate of Gallio (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 592, 597; Hofmann Corp. v. Superior Court (1985) 172 Cal.App.3d 357.)  Moreover, Petitioner’s discovery requests are blatantly overbroad, seeking “any and all medical records” of Respondent.  That said, Petitioner’s argument that Respondent failed to demonstrate any effort to meet and confer is well-taken.  (Cal. Civ. Proc. §2023.010(i); Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 5.98.) 

Accordingly, the subpoenas are hereby stayed pending resolution of the motion and Petitioner’s counsel is ordered to notify the deponents/custodians of records of such.  This hearing shall be continued to November 13, 2017.  No later than five (5) days prior to the hearing, both counsel shall submit a declaration regarding their mutual efforts to meet and confer and their respective client’s response to such.  The Court will expect the declarations to reflect reasonable compromise as to the scope and duration of the relevant records based on the disputed issue(s), the availability of a stipulated confidentiality agreement or protective order to mitigate Respondent’s privacy concerns, whether any unresolved issues require in camera review by the Court and whether the documents are sufficiently voluminous as to warrant a discovery referee.  If the parties resolve the present dispute prior to the deadline for supplemental declarations or hearing, the Court will vacate the hearing with no appearance or further response required upon the request of the moving party. 


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

8006071 - LATA VS SINGH

Respondent’s Request for Order re Modification of Support, etc.—APPEARANCE REQUIRED.

Support requests are ineligible for tentative ruling and an evidentiary hearing is necessary for any orders.  (Stan. Cnty. Sup. Ct. Local Rules, rule 7.05.1)  Respondent’s ostensible “set aside” request is unsupported by authority and Respondent fails to rebut the prima facie evidence of service from Petitioner’s filed proofs of service.  To the extent Petitioner’s failure to provide an income and expense declaration has prejudiced Respondent, this may be rectified upon consideration of Respondent’s modification requests, if appropriate. 

8002118 HANSEN VS HANSEN

Petitioner’s Request for Order re Change of Venue – HEARING REQUIRED


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

695044 – CLINKENBEARD V. CLINKENBEARD

Third-Party’s Notice of Motion re Joinder— APPEARANCE REQUIRED.

Proof of service by mail on counsel for Petitioner/Father is insufficient; personal service on both parents is required.  (Fam. Code §3104(d).)

Since the matter is post-judgment and sole legal and physical custody has been awarded to Petitioner, joinder will not be ordered until the Court determines whether visitation should be granted.  (Fam. Code. §3104(a); Cal. Rules of Ct, rule 5.24(a)(1)(B); Local Rule 7.71.1(B)(3); Marriage of Harris (2004) 34 Cal.4th 210, 222.)  If Petitioner does not appear, or appears and objects based on non-service, and Third-Party is unable to demonstrate timely and valid service, the motion will be denied without prejudice.  Alternatively, if Petitioner appears and objects only to grandparent visitation, the matter will be set for long-cause hearing at which there is a rebuttable presumption that must be overcome by clear and convincing evidence that visitation is not in the best interests of the minor child. (Fam. Code. §3104(f).) 


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

8006473 – HENSLEY VS HENSLEY

Respondent’s Request for Order re Motion to Quash, etc.—GRANTED, in part; DENIED, in part.

Petitioner failed to serve mandatory consumer notices with respect to all the subject subpoenas except for that directed to Sutter Gould Medical Foundation.  Accordingly, the Court quashes the subject subpoenas with the exception of Sutter Gould Medical Foundation.  (Cal. Civ. Proc. §§1985.3(b), 1987.1(a); Sasson v. Katash (1983) 146 CA3d 119, 124.)  As to the latter, Respondent is not the “consumer” nor does Respondent’s counsel represent the “consumer.”  Respondent offers no authority that she has standing to assert the rights or privileges of the consumer.  Regarding sanctions, motions to quash are subpoenas duces tecum are governed by Cal. Civ. Proc. §1987.1 and “expenses” provided for in Cal. Civ. Proc. §1987.2.  The pre-requisite for such is that the motion to quash was “opposed in bad faith,” something that is not present due to the absence of any opposition by Petitioner.  (Cal. Civ. Proc. §1987.2(a).)  Consequently, the sanctions request is denied.

8006477 - HENSLEY VS HENSLEY

Respondent’s Request for Order re Motion to Quash, etc.—GRANTED, in part; DENIED, in part.

Petitioner failed to serve mandatory consumer notices with respect to all the subject subpoenas except for that directed to Sutter Gould Medical Foundation.  Accordingly, the Court quashes the subject subpoenas with the exception of Sutter Gould Medical Foundation.  (Cal. Civ. Proc. §§1985.3(b), 1987.1(a); Sasson v. Katash (1983) 146 CA3d 119, 124.)  As to the latter, Respondent is not the “consumer” nor does Respondent’s counsel represent the “consumer.”  Respondent offers no authority that she has standing to assert the rights or privileges of the consumer.  Regarding sanctions, motions to quash are subpoenas duces tecum are governed by Cal. Civ. Proc. §1987.1 and “expenses” provided for in Cal. Civ. Proc. §1987.2.  The pre-requisite for such is that the motion to quash was “opposed in bad faith,” something that is not present due to the absence of any opposition by Petitioner.  (Cal. Civ. Proc. §1987.2(a).)  Consequently, the sanctions request is denied.