December 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: December 18, 2017


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 Valli K. Israels in Department #13:

8002426 - BINFIELD VS BINFIELD

Respondent’s Request for Order re “Re-Open Case”—DENIED.

There is no recognized legal authority for a motion or RFO to “re-open” an action that has been dismissed.  Respondent’s default was entered on September 15, 2016 and the Petitioner failed to appear twice, leading to involuntarily dismissal after an order to show cause hearing on April 7, 2017.  Thus, even a motion for relief pursuant to the Code of Civil Procedure, section 473 subd. (b), would be unavailing due to expiration of the six (6) month time limit.  Moreover, Respondent offers no reasons, let alone proof, of any legitimate basis under section 473.  Consequently, the dismissal constituted a final judgment that deprives the Court of further jurisdiction to proceed.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 581d; Lakkees v. Superior Court (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 531, 540; Gogri v. Jack In The Box Inc. (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 255, 261.)  Of course, nothing prevents either party from filing a new petition for dissolution. 

The Self-Help Center offers free help to people who are representing themselves in Court in a variety of legal matters.  Assistance is provided daily on a walk-in first-come, first-served basis.  Office Hours are Monday – Thursday, 8:00 a.m. to noon and 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m., and Fridays 1:00 pm to 4:00 pm.  Location:  800 11th Street, Room 220, Modesto, California.


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

425042 – HEM VS. HEM

Petitioner’s Request for Order Re Sanctions (Fam. Code §271) - DENIED, without prejudice.

Petitioner has not demonstrated sufficient evidence for the Court to consider the Respondent’s ability to pay a sanctions award pursuant to Fam. Code §271.


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

THERE ARE NO TENTATIVES