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 matter.

Date: May 8, 2024

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:

THERE ARE NO TENTATIVES.

The following are the tentative ruling cases calendared before Judge Sweena Pannu in Department #14:

FL-22-001619 – TRUONG VS TRUONG

Continued Hearing on Respondent’s Request for Order re Child Support, etc.—DENIED, without prejudice.

Respondent’s order request was continued to the present because the Court found service to be defective.  Respondent was ordered to perfect service and to file proof thereof, as per the Findings and Order After Hearing of March 11, 2024.  The Court’s docket contains no filed proof of service for the continued hearing date, and Petitioner did not file a responsive declaration.  As this would be the second continuance, Respondent’s counsel must appear, telephonically or in person), demonstrate reasonable diligence in attempting valid service, and demonstrate good cause for a further continuance.

FL-24-000513 – BENTON VS BENTON

Continued Hearing on Court’s Motion re Jurisdiction—HEARING REQUIRED.

According to Respondent’s Declaration, he filed a dissolution petition in Amador County and attached to his declaration is a file-marked Petition for Dissolution filed by Respondent as a party petitioner in that case filed on February 21, 2024.  The instant Domestic Violence Petition in this forum was filed by Petitioner on February 23, 2024, only a few days later. 

The Court will take judicial notice of the pleadings attached as exhibits to Respondent’s declaration.  However, the Court does so only as to facial matters (date and time of filing, etc.) and not for the truth of any disputed factual assertions at-issue in the case at bar.  (Evid. Code, § 452(d).) 

As such, the Court has no evidence as to whether Petitioner has been served with Respondent’s dissolution case, and no evidence as to whether any orders with respect to the minor children have been made or are presently pending. 

In the case at bar, Respondent was personally served with the Domestic Violence Petition on March 10, 2024 by the Sherriff’s Civil Division.  Respondent appeared for child custody mediation on March 21, 2024, albeit telephonically, and orders were made.  (FOAH, 3/21/24.)  A Restraining Order After Hearing was heard and granted on March 21, 2024 that expires on March 21, 2027, unless extended beyond that date or terminated prior to that date.

Under these circumstances, the Court concludes that it has plenary jurisdiction to proceed notwithstanding the presumed pendency of a dissolution action in Amador County. 

First, the defense that there is another and identical action pending between the same parties—known at Common Law as a “plea in abatement”—is not jurisdictional in the fundamental sense and must be raised by a motion to quash within the time to plead and without a general appearance or else the defense is waived.  (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 5.63(b)(2) [prior judgment or another action pending], (e) [waiver]; see, Zaragoza v. Superior Court (1996) 49 Cal.App.4th 720, 726.) 

Second, Respondent’s evidence is insufficient to demonstrate that the two actions concern the same causes of action or “primary right.”  While there is considerable overlap between proceedings under the DVPA and the orders that are available pending trial in dissolution proceedings, the purpose of proceedings in the case at bar are to prevent domestic violence whereas the purpose of dissolution cases is to terminate the parties’ marital status, divide the marital estate equally, and ensure adequate support for spouses and children.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10(c) [must be identical “causes of action”]; Hall v. Susskind (1895) 109 Cal. 203; Bush v. Superior Court (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1374, 1384; Schwing, (2d ed.) 2 Cal. Affirmative Def. § 23:2 [Actions pending in same jurisdiction].)  To the extent that refusal to stay or abate the case at bar creates a risk of inconsistent or contradictory child custody and visitation orders, this may be managed under the UCCJEA by communication between the Court and its counterpart in Amador County.

Third, pleas in abatement, or “dilatory pleas,” are disfavored under modern pleading practice and the prevailing view is that the action to be stayed or dismissed is not the one first-filed, but rather the one in which in personam jurisdiction over the parties is first acquired by perfection of service.  (Lord v. Garland (1946) 27 Cal.2d 840, 848; 5 Witkin, Cal. Proc. 6th (2024) Plead § 970 [Other Action Pending]; California Union Ins. Co. v. Trinity River Land Co. (1980) 105 Cal.App.3d 104; Burch v. Slamin (1955) 137 Cal.App.2d 1, 3; Schwing, supra, § 23:2.) 

Based on the facts currently known, there is only a matter of three days between the filing of each action and personal jurisdiction has clearly been acquired over Respondent in this forum.  As such, the Court finds that it has both personal and subject matter jurisdiction and will not stay or dismiss this case unless and until circumstances dictate otherwise.

The following are the tentative ruling cases calendared before Judge David I. Hood in Department #25:

FL-22-001381 – ARANDA VS ARANDA

Respondent’s Request for Order re Spousal Support, etc.—HEARING REQUIRED, in part; GRANTED, conditionally, in part.

The spousal support termination request is not eligible for tentative ruling and requires a hearing.  That said, the allegation of cohabitation with a non-marital partner does not, ipso facto, warrant immediate termination or even downward modification of spousal support.  Rather, the Family Code establishes a rebuttable presumption, affecting the burden of proof, that the supported spouse thereby has a decreased need for support sufficient to demonstrate a material change of circumstances warranting modification and revisiting the 4320 factors anew.  (Fam. Code, § 4323(a)(1); Marriage of Tong & Samson (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 23, 29 [$800 monthly food contribution from Wife's cohabiting “friend” insufficient to justify immediate termination or significant reduction in Wife’s $9,059 base spousal support award].) 

Respondent will bear the initial threshold burden of establishing by a preponderance that Petitioner’s cohabitation entails more than a roommate or cost-sharing arrangement, and involves a sexual, romantic or at least “homemaker-companion” relationship.  (Marriage of Thweatt (1979) 96 Cal.App.3d 530; Marriage of Bower (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 893, 899.)  Even if Respondent establishes the foundational requirements for the 4323(a)(1) presumption, the burden then shifts to Petitioner, who is entitled to offer rebuttal evidence that the cohabitation has not reduced her need for support.  Absent some agreement or stipulation by counsel for the parties, the Court finds that this request will require a long-cause hearing date and a briefing schedule.

The request to bifurcate the question of marital status and set the matter for early and separate trial is granted, conditionally.  The case has been pending since June of 2022, and CalPERS appears to be the only pension plan of concern and has both been joined as a party and has filed a Notice of Appearance.  All other procedural prerequisites for early and separate status termination have been satisfied, such as service by Respondent as the moving party of his PDD’s.  (Fam. Code, § 2337(f); Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 5.390.)  As for the merits, public policy favors bifurcation for an early “status only” judgment because it furthers the legislative intent that marriage dissolution not be postponed simply because issues relating to property, support, custody or attorney fees are not ready for decision. (Marriage of Fink (1976) 54 Cal.App.3d 357, 363-364; Gionis v. Superior Court (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 786, 790.) 

Hence, the party seeking status termination need only present “slight evidence,” whereas the party opposing it must present “compelling reasons” of actual prejudice that may not be cured via the protective conditions that the Court may impose when granting the request.  Respondent’s intent to remarry in approximately three months would seem to be sufficient and Petitioner points to no incurable and/or unavoidable prejudice should status be terminated. (Gionis, supra, 202 Cal.App.3d at 788-790.)  Consequently, the Court is inclined to grant this request conditioned upon submission and approval by the Court of the “protected conditions” attachment (FL-315) form and the “status-only” judgment (FL-180 judgment; FL-348 protective conditions attachment).