Request for Order (RFO); Ex parte application
LAW & MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS DEPARTMENT 5 May 7, 2026 8:30 a.m./1:30 p.m.
2. CHEYENE BONARI V. JOHN HARTSOUGH 24FL0767
Petitioner filed a Request for Order (RFO) on February 6, 2026, seeking a modification of child custody and parenting plan orders. The parties were not referred to Child Custody Recommending Counseling (CCRC) as they had attended within the prior six months. Respondent was served with only the RFO on February 6, 2026. There is no Proof of Service showing the Department of Child Support Services was served.
Petitioner filed an ex parte application for emergency custody orders on March 19, 2026. Respondent filed a Responsive Declaration on March 23 and again on March 24th. The court granted the ex parte request in part on March 24, 2026 and referred the parties to an emergency set CCRC appointment on April 7, 2026 and a review hearing set for May 7, 2026. Respondent was served on March 24, 2026. There is no Proof of Service showing the Department of Child Support Services was served.
Both parties attended CCRC on April 7, 2026. The parties were unable to reach any agreements. A report with recommendations was filed with the court on April 28, 2026, and mailed to the parties on April 29th.
Respondent filed a Responsive Declaration on April 29, 2026. There is no Proof of Service for this document, therefore, the court cannot consider it. Additionally, the court finds this to be late filed. Civil Procedure section 1005(b) states all opposition papers are to be filed at least nine court days before the hearing date. Section 12c states, “[w]here any law requires an act to be performed no later than a specified number of days before a hearing date, the last day to perform that act shall be determined by counting backward from the hearing date, excluding the day of the hearing as provided by Section 12.” Cal. Civ. Pro. § 12c. Section 1005(b) in conjunction with Section 12c would have made April 24th the last day for filing a response to the RFO. Therefore, the declaration is late filed and has not been considered by the court.
Parties are ordered to appear for the hearing.
TENTATIVE RULING #2: PARTIES ARE ORDERED TO APPEAR FOR THE HEARING.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”