Josie James Dionne v. Chelsea Anne McElveen

1 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 2 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 3 UNIFIED FAMILY COURT 4

5) 6 JOSIE JAMES DIONNE,) Case Number: FDI-25-801998) 7 Petitioner) Hearing Date: June 18, 2026) 8 VS.) Hearing Time: 9:00 AM) 9 CHELSEA ANNE MCELVEEN,) Department: 403) 10 Respondent) Presiding: BOBBY P. LUNA) 11) 12 REQUEST FOR ORDER: ENTRY OF JUDGMENT OF DISSOLUTION 13 TENTATIVE RULING 14 Having read and considered the pleadings, declarations, and other evidence submitted in this matter, the 15 Court makes the following findings and orders: 16 A. Procedural History 17 1) The parties are Petitioner Josie James Dionne and Respondent Chelsea Anne McElveen. 18 2) On 10/6/25, Petitioner filed a Petition for Dissolution indicating the date of marriage is 8/23/24 19 and date of separation is 5/30/25 for a marriage of 9 months. 20 3) On 1/23/26, Respondent filed a Response and Request for Dissolution indicating the date of 21 marriage is 8/23/24 and date of separation is 5/30/25 for a marriage of 9 months. 22 4) On 5/4/26, Respondent filed a Request for Order seeking entry of Dissolution Judgment based on 23 an attached Martial Settlement Agreement (MSA), which is unsigned. 24 5) On 5/8/26, Petitioner filed an Income and Expense Declaration. 25 6) On 5/11/26, Petitioner filed an Income and Expense Declaration. 26 7) On 6/4/26, Petitioner filed a Responsive Declaration in opposition to Respondent’s Request for 27 Order.

Petitioner states she agrees to dissolution of marital status but opposes Petitioner’s request, 28 asserting Respondent has not provided complete financial disclosures and the parties entered into 29 a separate written agreement regarding debt allocation and is not included in the MSA

1 Respondent proposed. Petitioner states she requested Respondent disclose business records 2 related to Respondent’s business interests by 5/22/26. 3 8) On 6/5/26, Respondent filed a Reply Declaration wherein she objects to the timeliness of service 4 and filing of Petitioner’s Responsive Declaration. Respondent asserts she has provided complete 5 financial disclosures, and Petitioner’s email requesting disclosure of business records does not 6 constitute formal discovery. Respondent disputes that the validity of the separate written 7 agreement regarding debt allocation.

Respondent requests $7,500 in Family Code section 271 8 sanctions against Petitioner. 9 9) The Court notes both parties filed a Declaration Regarding Service of Declaration of Disclosure 10 and Income and Expense Declaration (form FL-141): Respondent on 4/6/26 and Petitioner on 11 5/11/26. 12 B. Findings and Order 13 1) Respondent’s request for entry of Dissolution Judgment based on an unsigned MSA is DENIED. 14 The Court cannot enter an agreement to which both parties do not agree. 15 2) Respondent’s request for $7,500 in Family Code section 271 sanctions is DENIED. 16 3) To advance in the Court’s dissolution process, either party may file an At Issue Memorandum to 17 request a Status Conference at which time a trial date can be requested if it is determined that the 18 parties are ready for trial. 19 4) The Court will prepare the Findings and Order After Hearing. 20