Request for Order Re: Default
1 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 2 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 3 UNIFIED FAMILY COURT 4
5) 6 GREGORY A. AUSTIN,) Case Number: FDI-14-780775) 7 Petitioner) Hearing Date: July 9, 2026) 8 VS.) Hearing Time: 9:00 AM) 9 TAMMY MILLER-AUSTIN,) Department: 404) 10 Respondent) Presiding: AI MORI) 11) 12 REQUEST FOR ORDER RE: DEFAULT 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) Petitioner Gregory Austin (Husband) and Respondent Tammy Miller-Austin (Wife) married on 18 10/7/1995 and separated on 10/8/2013, for a marriage of 18 years.
The parties have an adult child, 19 Martin (DOB: 3/26/1998, age 28). Both parties are self -represented. 20 2) On 2/5/2014, a Domestic Violence Restraining Order After Hearing was granted against Husband 21 for the protection of Wife and the parties’ child. That restraining order was originally set to expire 22 on 9/30/2016, but it has been renewed twice, on 8/24/2016 and again on 11/17/2021. The 23 restraining order is currently set to expire on 11/17/2026. 24 3) On 10/30/2017, a Judgment was entered following a trial before the Honorable Judge Wiley.
Both 25 parties appeared at trial. The Judgment provides in relevant part: 26 a. The marital residence located at 2506 23rd Avenue San Francisco, CA 94711 was 27 awarded to Wife and Wife was ordered to pay Husband an equalizing payment of 28 $179,038.23 29
1 b. The parties shall retain Moon Schwartz & Madden to prepare QDROs to divide the 2 community interest in Wife’s VALIC retirement account (which had a date of separation 3 cash value of $9,428.55) and Husband’s retirement accounts with St. Mary’s, 4 Presbyterian Medical Center, and Dignity Health
5 c. Husband’s request for permanent spousal support is denied 6 4) No pleadings were filed in this matter between the date the restraining order was renewed on 7 11/17/2021 and the date Husband filed the instant Request for Order. 8 5) Now on for hearing is Husband’s Request for Order filed 5/11/2026. Husband states Wife 9 breached her fiduciary duties to him by failing to divide retirement accounts by QDRO, failing to
10 disclose “probate of acquired property 2636 W Pratt Blvd. Chicago, IL,” distributing fund s to 11 their adult son for undergraduate and / or graduate degrees and for housing, and illegally utilizing 12 the basement of the former marital residence to earn rental income. Husband also argues that the 13 prior restraining order violates his freedom of speech, right to bear arms, and right to free 14 association and free assembly and that Wife and their son are “accomplices” to the illegal
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?”
15 appropriation of his “legal and registered firearms.” Husband states he has suffered $3,117,000 in 16 damages. Husband asks the Court to: 17 a. Reverse the restraining order and instead issue “a similar restraining order against spouse 18 and son as restrained parties with CLETS” 19 b. Reimburse him for child support
20 c. Give Husband temporary exclusive use, possession, and control of 2506 23rd Aven ue 21 San Francisco, CA 94711 22 d. “forensic financial reporting fees, return of firearms, court fees, remand to U.S. District to 23 investigate firearms / inheritance fraud” 24 e. Award Husband $3,117,000 for damages
25 f. Admonish Court’s officers 26 g. Transfer all family real estate titles to Husband’s name 27 h. Order jail time for Wife and the parties’ son 28 6) On 6/22/2026, Wife filed a Responsive Declaration asking that the Court dismiss Husband’s 29 Request for Order for “failure to state a claim.” Wife states she paid Husband the $179,039.23 net
1 equalizing payment on or about 11/21/2017 and Husband signed an Interspousal Transfer Deed 2 granting Wife the property located at 2506 23rd Avenue San Francisco, CA 94711 as her sole and 3 separate property. Wife also states that in October 2017, her f ormer attorney attempted to finalize 4 the division of the parties’ retirement accounts using Moon Schwartz and Madden, but MSM
5 could not complete the QDROs because Husband failed to provide the information for all of his 6 retirement plans. Wife states Husband’s motion is a continuation of the physical and emotional 7 abuse that caused her to obtain a restraining order. Wife asks the Court to dismiss Husband’s 8 Request for Order in full with prejudice. 9 7) Per the Proof of Service filed 6/22/2026, Wife’s Responsive Declaration was mailed to the
10 address the Court has on file for Husband on 6/20/2026. 11 8) Husband did not file a Reply Declaration. 12 B. Findings and Order 13 1) The Court finds that Husband has not met his burden of establishing good cause for the requested 14 relief. Husband's Request for Order is denied.
15 2) The Court will prepare the Findings and Order After Hearing. 16
20
24
28
29