Request for Order — Bifurcation re Date of Separation; Case Progress Conference
On January 2, 2026, Petitioner Miki Suzuki (Mother) filed her Request for Order (RFO), seeking a separate trial on date of separation, and characterization of certain assets as community property (CP).
Mother requests to bifurcate the date of separation. Father agrees to bifurcate the date of separation.
Mother also seeks an order characterizing certain assets as CP. Further, Mother seeks an order for Respondent Junji Suzuki (Father) to advance $100,000 of that CP to her. Mother asserts that she needs access to funds to repay a loan to her parents and to relocate to Japan with the parties’ two daughters. Father objects to both characterizing assets in advance of trial and to advancing the funds and argues Mother has not presented any immediate need.
The request to bifurcate the date of separation is granted. A case progress conference is also set for February 17, 2026, and the Court will set trial dates and a briefing schedule then.
As for Mother’s request to characterize certain property as CP, the request is denied. Characterization and division of property are trial issues.
As to the request to advance CP, the Court agrees with Father that Mother has not demonstrated a specific need for the requested $100,000. Mother’s potential move to Japan is not yet before the Court. Father also points out that liquidation of the proposed funds would result in significant costs that would impose irreparable harm to the marital estate. The request is denied without prejudice.
Counsel for Mother is to prepare the formal findings and order after hearing.
The parties shall comply with Marin County Superior Court Local Rules 7.12(B) and (C). Any party requesting oral argument must notify the Court at (415) 444-7046 and all opposing parties by 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing. Notice may be provided by telephone or in person. Absent proper notice, no oral argument will be permitted, and if no request is made, the tentative ruling shall become the order of the Court.
Appearances may be made in person or via Zoom unless otherwise ordered. Parties are responsible for ensuring adequate connectivity and availability; the Court may proceed in a party’s absence if technical issues arise. Parties requesting oral argument must appear in person or remotely by Zoom (video or telephone) in accordance with court website guidelines. Proper Zoom etiquette and courtroom decorum are required, and failure to comply may result in the hearing being halted and an order to appear in person.
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?”