May 18, 2021

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

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: 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 17, 2021


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


The following are the tentative ruling cases calendared before Judge J. Richard Distaso in Department #13: 


Petitioner’s Request for Order re Elisor, etc.—GRANTED, and unopposed.

Notice and proof of service in accord with the order shortening time having been filed, demonstrating valid and timely service of Respondent, and Respondent having filed no opposition or responsive declaration, the Court finds that Respondent has unreasonably failed to comply with parties’ Judgment of August 10, 2001, by refusing or being unavailable to sign the QDRO dividing the Respondent’s pension plan prepared by the employer/plan’s in-house counsel.   Accordingly, Petitioner’s unopposed request is granted and the Clerk of the Court is hereby appointed elisor to sign on Respondent’s behalf. 

Petitioner shall submit a proposed order stating that “The Clerk of the Court or Clerk’s Designee” is appointed as elisor to sign on behalf of Miguel Ortiz, as Respondent/Participant, In Pro Per, the attached “STIPULATED QUALIFIED DOMESTIC RELATIONS ORDER,” incorporated herein by this reference. 

After approval and signature by the Court, Petitioner must bring the signed order with an exact copy of the attached QDRO to the Family Law Clerk’s Office for signature by the elisor.  If the elisor’s signature must be notarized when signed, Petitioner must arrange for a licensed public notary to be present at the Family Law Clerk’s Office when presented for signature.  (See, Local Rules, rule 7.08(A) [Appointment of Elisors].) 

Petitioner may wish to consult an attorney or else free assistance may be provided through the Court’s Self-Help Office.  Due to the pandemic, Self-Help service is available only telephonically and only by appointment.  An appointment may be scheduled by visiting the Court’s web site: ; or by email using: .  

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

8000344 – GUZMAN v. GUZMAN

Respondent’s Request for Order (RFO) re Change of Venue – APPEARANCE REQUIRED

The court finds no proof of service of the RFO on respondent.  Denial is required unless petitioner demonstrates that proper service occurred, or unless respondent waives the service defect.

On the merits, the court cannot grant the venue change request as currently presented.  Code of Civil Procedure section 397.5 reads: “In any proceeding for dissolution or nullity of marriage or legal separation of the parties under the Family Code, where it appears that both petitioner and respondent have moved from the county rendering the order, the court may, when the ends of justice and the convenience of the parties would be promoted by the change, order that the proceedings be transferred to the county of residence of either party.”  Because this is a post-judgment dissolution action, this statute might apply here, but the court is unable to know to what extent because the RFO does not provide the current county of residence for either of the parties and instead only indicates where the children reside. 

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