RAMOS VS RAMOS

Respondent was not served with petition and summons until January 13, 2026, according to the Proof of Service of Summons on file.

It is not clear from Respondent's attachments when Petitioner was served with process in the Merced County case, but the judgment entered clearly resulted from taking Petitioner's default without an agreement, i.e., a pure default. As before, Respondent has not provided properly certified or authenticated records and, without notice and opportunity to be heard, the Court may not take judicial notice of these documents on its own motion. (Evid. Code, Sec.Sec. 452(d), 455(a).) Accordingly, the Court hereby gives notice to all parties that it intends to do so and will allow the parties to be heard. If, in fact, a valid judgment has been entered in the Merced County action, and marital status has already been terminated, then that renders a legal separation petition moot as a matter of law.

Lastly, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause to Petitioner for the failure to appear at the Case Management Conference of June 5, 2026, and for failure to prosecute this action as required, and to appear and explain why the case at bar should not be dismissed. That hearing is set for the same date and time as Respondent's Request for Order. Consequently, if Petitioner does not appear, or fails to show good cause to the contrary, then the Court will dismiss this case and Respondent's Request for Order will then be dropped as moot.

The following are the tentative ruling cases calendared before Judge Maria Elena Ramos-Ratliff in Department #25: FL-22-000365 - RAMOS VS RAMOS Petitioner's Request for Order re Spousal Support, etc.-- DENIED, without prejudice.

Petitioner was granted an Order Shortening Time (OST) and the Court mandated personal service of Respondent. Moreover, the matter is post-judgment and therefore valid and timely individual party service of Respondent is jurisdictional. (Fam. Code, Sec. 215(a).) If Petitioner does not appear and demonstrate good cause to continue the hearing to effectuate service, then the matter will be dropped and the temporary orders that were granted shall expire. That said, if both Petitioner and Respondent personally appear, and Respondent expressly waives any objection to notice and service, then the Court may entertain the merits.

In that case, the Court previously granted Petitioner's request to order sale of the family home and ordered spousal support payable by Respondent to Petitioner in the amount of $500/month. (Findings and Order After Hearing [FOAH], 6/2/2025, p. 2.)

Then, after this, the parties came before the Court on September 3, 2025, and the Court approved the parties' stipulation to change the prior orders so that, instead of sale, Petitioner would refinance the family home to buy out Respondent's interest and would retain exclusive possession in the meantime. (FOAH, 9/3/2025, p. 2.)