July 17, 2019

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: July 18, 2019                            

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

8004236 - LANE VS LANE

Respondent’s Request for Order re “Distribution,” etc.—HEARING REQUIRED.

Respondent’s request is for enforcement of judgment.  Petitioner has attached a QDRO to her response that would seemingly comply with Respondent’s request.  The parties are ordered to meet and confer as to whether they will stipulate to approval of the QDRO as proposed.  (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 5.98)  After they have done so, the Court will entertain any objections or changes only as to whether the proposed QDRO comports with the terms of the final judgment.  Absent non-conformity or other good cause, the Court is inclined to approve and order submission of the QDRO so that the case may be completed without further hearings or delay.

FL-18-000229 – RIVAS VS RIVAS

Petitioner’s Notice of Motion & Motion re Joinder—GRANTED.

The Court finds on the basis of the arguments and evidence of Petitioner that Third-Party is a person who alleges paternity or whose paternity has been the subject of a prior adjudication.  Joinder is therefore mandatory in this paternal relations matter. Petitioner shall proceed accordingly by timely service of the summons re joinder, filing proof thereof, and entering a timely default in the event of no response.


Petitioner’s Request for Order re Change of Venue—DENIED, without prejudice.

Petitioner has failed to file proof of service as required.  (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 5.94(b).)

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:


The following are the tentative ruling cases calendared before Judge Kellee Westbrook in Department #25:

FL-19-000052 - DIN VS DIN

Respondent’s Request for Order re “Family Residence,” etc.—DENIED, without prejudice.

In order to authorize and order sale of a community property residence before trial, the moving party must demonstrate that the sale of the asset is necessary to “avoid unreasonable market or investment risks, given the relative nature, scope, and extent of the community estate.”  (Fam. Code § 2108; Lee v. Superior Court (1976) 63 Cal.App.3d 705, 709-710.)  By Respondent’s own admission, the loan on the property is not in default and no evidence is supplied that it is at risk of default.  Absent exigent circumstances, family law cases are not disposed of piece-meal, one property dispute at a time.  Consequently, Respondent’s remaining issue of reimbursement for monies allegedly removed by Petitioner from a joint account must be addressed either as part of trial or by other authorized procedures, such as remedies for breach of ATRO’s or for breach of fiduciary duties.