DecisionDepot
California Legal Research
All cases
24FL1245·eldorado·Civil·Review Hearing
DROPPED FROM CALENDAR

COURTNEY WOLFE V. DANIEL WOLFE

Review hearing

Hearing date
May 7, 2026
Department
5
Judge
Prevailing
N/A
Appearance
Not required

Motion type

Other

Parties

PlaintiffCourtney Wolfe
DefendantDaniel Wolfe

Ruling

LAW & MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS DEPARTMENT 5 May 7, 2026 8:30 a.m./1:30 p.m.

23. COURTNEY WOLFE V. DANIEL WOLFE 24FL1245

On November 6, 2025, parties appeared for a hearing on Petitioner’s Request for Order (RFO). The parties reached a full agreement, which included setting a review hearing for May 7, 2026 at 1:30 PM in Department 5. The court advised the parties that failure to file a supplemental declaration at least 10 days prior to the hearing, would result in the review hearing being dropped from calendar.

Neither party has filed a supplemental declaration.

All prior orders remain in full force and effect.

TENTATIVE RULING #22: THE MATTER IS DROPPED FROM CALENDAR DUE TO THE FAILURE OF BOTH PARTIES TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATIONS. ALL PRIOR ORDERS REMAIN IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT.

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.

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…

Extracted by Gemini Flash from the ruling text. Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Powered by Gemini Flash Lite. Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Source

Share