Petitioner's Request for Order re Attorney's Fees, etc.
Stanislaus County - FamilyLaw - https://www.stanislaus.courts.ca.gov/online-services/tentative-rulings/family-law-t entative-rulings Family Law Tentative Rulings
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 3:30 p.m. daily. 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 s own motion, the Court orders Respondent to comply within thirty (30) days of this ruling and admonishes Respondent that the failure to do so may result in the striking of the Response and entry of Respondent's default.
Date: 6/16/2026
The following are the tentative ruling cases calendared before Judge Alan Cassidy in Department #11:
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?”
FL-20-000299 - LOPEZ VS VILLAREAL Respondent's Request for Order re Child Custody, etc.-- HEARING REQUIRED. The child custody matters are set for June 29, 2026 and are not at issue here. Regarding venue change, Petitioner's Responsive Declaration consents to a change of venue to Contra Costa County, the forum that Respondent's seeks to change venue to. Even though both parties are in agreement, the Court's authority to transfer a case requires the Court to exercise discretion as to whether doing so will promote the convenience of witnesses and the ends of justice, in particular, the best interests of the minor child. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 397(c).) The parties are welcome to appear and be heard but the respective convenience of the parties is not a factor except in so far as it relates to the ends of justice and the best interests of the minor child.
FL-25-000908 - FUENTES VS FUENTES Petitioner's Request for Order re Attorney's Fees, etc.-- HEARING REQUIRED. Given the Court's directions to Respondent in the Findings and Order After Hearing (FOAH) of May 29, 2026, the continued Settlement Conference set for this same date, and the indication that Respondent's compliance--or lack thereof--may result in a continuance of the presently set trial date of July 23, 2026, the Court will likely reserve jurisdiction over this request and defer ruling until the full context of the alleged misconduct is presented and the Court has a complete picture of what would or would not impose an "unreasonable financial burden" on Respondent. That said, need-based attorney's fees and costs have also been requested and may be considered at the hearing.
The following are the tentative ruling cases calendared before Judge J. Richard Distaso in Department #13: THERE ARE NO TENTATIVES.
The following are the tentative ruling cases calendared before Judge Sarah Birmingham in Department #14: THERE ARE NO TENTATIVES.
The following are the tentative ruling cases calendared before Judge Maria Elena Ramos-Ratliff in Department #25:
FL-24-000352 - LACHINO VS CORTES Petitioner's Request for Order re Enforce Judgment, Sale of Real Property, and Related Relief is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART WITHOUT PREJUDICE, and is unopposed. Personal service upon Respondent is on file and demonstrates presumptively valid and timely post-judgment service in compliance with Family Code section 215. Respondent has not filed a Responsive Declaration or other opposition. Accordingly, on the basis of Petitioner's declaration, the documentary evidence submitted, and the parties' final judgment entered on December 31, 2025, the Court grants enforcement of the Judgment as set forth below.
The Court finds that the real property located at 1722 Denver Avenue, Modesto, California, was adjudicated in the Judgment as community property to be sold, with net sale proceeds to be divided equally between the parties. The Judgment further reserved jurisdiction to resolve issues relating to the sale and distribution of proceeds. The Court confirms that Mr. Julio Gomez shall oversee the sale of the property pursuant to the Judgment and stipulation of the parties, with a commission of 2.5%, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the parties or ordered by the Court.
The parties are ordered to fully cooperate in all actions reasonably necessary to effectuate the listing and sale of the property. The listing price shall be determined in consultation with the parties and the realtor. In the event the parties are unable to reach agreement within a reasonable time, Petitioner, shall have final decision-making authority regarding listing price and sale terms, subject to the realtor's written recommendation and absent further court order.
All net proceeds from the sale, after payment of customary costs of sale, liens, encumbrances, commissions, and escrow fees, shall be distributed through escrow in accordance with the Judgment and any further orders of the Court. If Respondent refuses to comply with these orders or execute necessary sale documents, Petitioner may seek leave ex parte for appointment of the clerk as elisor to execute documents on Respondent's behalf, provided Petitioner complies with Local Rule 7.08(A) and any other applicable local procedures.
Petitioner's request for allocation or distribution of rental income generated from trailers located on the property is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Court finds that the ownership, characterization, and income derived from the trailers were not adjudicated in the Judgment entered on December 31, 2025, and the present record is insufficient to determine ownership interests or entitlement to rents. Nothing herein precludes either party from seeking future relief upon an appropriate evidentiary showing and legal basis.