Request for Order (custody); Request to contest venue
LAW & MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS DEPARTMENT 5 June 4, 2026 8:30 a.m./1:30 p.m.
9. RYAN TOPP V. HAIDEE LENEE ANDERSEN 25FL0538
On December 12, 2025, Petitioner filed a Request for Order (RFO) seeking custody and visitation orders, child abduction prevention orders, and travel restriction orders. The parties were referred to Child Custody Recommending Counseling (CCRC) with an appointment on January 16, 2026. There is no Proof of Service for the RFO or the CCRC referral and neither party appeared at CCRC therefore, this matter is dropped from calendar due to lack of proper service.
On March 2, 2026, Respondent filed an RFO specially appearing to contest venue and request a transfer. The RFO was served the same day as filing however Respondent did not serve the Notice of Tentative Ruling.
Petitioner filed a Responsive Declaration to Request for Order on June 1, 2026. The court finds this to be late filed pursuant to Civil Procedure section 1005(b) which 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 May 21st the last day for filing the Responsive Declaration to Request for Order therefore it is late filed and has not been read or considered by the court.
TENTATIVE RULING #9: THE PARTIES ARE ORDERED TO APPEAR ON RESPONDENT’S MARCH 2, 2026 RFO.
PETITIONER’S DECEMBER 12, 2025 RFO IS DROPPED FROM CALENDAR DUE TO LACK OF PROPER SERVICE.
NO HEARING ON THIS MATTER WILL BE HELD UNLESS A REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT IS TRANSMITTED ELECTRONICALLY THROUGH THE COURT’S WEBSITE OR BY PHONE CALL TO THE COURT AT (530) 621-6725 BY 4:00 P.M. ON THE DAY THE TENTATIVE RULING IS ISSUED. CAL. RULE CT. 3.1308; LOCAL RULE 8.05.07; SEE ALSO LEWIS V. SUPERIOR COURT, 19 CAL.4TH 1232, 1247 (1999). NOTICE TO ALL PARTIES OF A REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT AND THE GROUNDS UPON WHICH ARGUMENT IS BEING REQUESTED MUST BE MADE BY PHONE CALL OR IN PERSON BY 4:00 P.M. ON THE DAY THE TENTATIVE RULING IS ISSUED. CAL. RULE CT. 3.1308; LOCAL RULE 8.05.07.
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?”