LINARES VS OROZCO

FL-25-000908 - FUENTES VS FUENTES Petitioner's Request for Order re Attorney's Fees and Costs, etc.-- HEARING REQUIRED. The Court notes the Responsive Declaration filed by Respondent, but Respondent's opposition is untimely under the Rules of Court since this matter was originally set for hearing on June 16, 2026, and was continued to afford Respondent the opportunity to comply with the financial disclosures and documents the absence of which caused Petitioner to file this motion for conduct-based sanctions, among other things.

Accordingly, the Court is more interested in addressing Respondent's compliance with the prior Findings and Order After Hearing of June 16, 2026, and only after this will the Court entertain Respondent's allegations of reduced or limited income. The Court's findings will then govern whether conduct-based sanctions shall be awarded and, if so, an amount that will not impose an unreasonable burden on Respondent, particularly if that amount is not ordered to be paid as a lump sum. (Fam. Code, Sec. 271(a).)

The following are the tentative ruling cases calendared before Judge J. Richard Distaso in Department #13:

FL-25-001339 - ROMERO VS ROMERO Petitioner's Request for Order re Spousal Support, etc.-- HEARING REQUIRED, in part; DENIED, without prejudice, in part. The requests for child and spousal support are not eligible for tentative ruling and require a hearing. This is also true of the need-based request for attorney's fees and costs.

However, while it also appears need-based, the Court elects to issue a tentative ruling as to the request for $25,000.00 in "expert witness" professional fees. In that regard, Petitioner's declaration does not specify the expert witness sought to be retained, the scope of the retention and the reasonableness and necessity of doing so. Counsel for Petitioner did not submit a declaration on this point at all.

As noted in Respondent's Responsive Declaration, there is a question as to whether one or more of the subject businesses is even a going concern and relevant to property division. Given that Petitioner did not seek to have the case designated as "complex" pursuant to Family Code section 2032(d), and the Court lacks sufficient evidence to make this finding at this time, the request is denied without prejudice. The case is relatively recent and the Court advises counsel to meet and confer in good faith with a view towards resolution and/or narrowing the disputed issues for trial. (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 5.98(a).)

FL-23-001017 - HATFIELD VS HATFIELD Petitioner's Request for Order re Property Control, etc.-- HEARING REQUIRED. The Court granted temporary orders with request to freezing the subject QDRO and whether they are extended or have become moot will be determined at the hearing. Respondent's Responsive Declaration disputes Petitioner's factual allegations regarding compliance and the nature or extent of any non-compliance. This factual dispute requires a hearing.

That said, whether after-the fact compliance only occurred after Petitioner was required to file the instant order request will not obviate Petitioner's request for monetary sanctions. Regarding the request for an elisor, the necessity of that at present will be determined at the hearing and, if granted, will be conditioned upon compliance with the Local Rules for elisor appointment. (Local Rules, rule 7.08(A).)

The following are the tentative ruling cases calendared before Judge Sarah Birmingham in Department #14:

FL-21-001608 - LINARES VS OROZCO Third-Party's Motion re Joinder-- HEARING REQUIRED. The parties are unmarried and pursuant to the most recent and conditionally non-modifiable custody orders, Respondent exercises sole legal and physical custody of the minor children. Third-Party alleges she is the paternal grandmother and seeks to exercise statutory grandparent visitation by court order over Respondent's objection.

If Respondent appears and consents to any grandparent visitation, then the Court will exercise discretion as to whether the matter may be referred to mediation, and if an agreement is reached, then joinder may be granted. Otherwise, Third-Party may not be joined as a matter of law and no mediation or child visitation may take place over Respondent's objection unless and until Third-Party demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that such is in the best interests of the minor children. (Fam.

Code Sec. 3104(a)(2); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.24(e)(1)(B); Local Rules, rule 7.08(B)(2); In re Marriage of Harris (2004) 34 Cal.4th 210, 222; Rich v. Thatcher (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1176, 1181 [clear and convincing evidence burden essential to constitutionality of statutory grandparent visitation over fit custodial parents' objections]; Ian J. v. Peter M. (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 189, 205-209 [trial court abused discretion in failing to apply clear and convincing evidence standard and to consider "the breadth of circumstances a parent may reasonably consider in deciding to limit or prevent contact with a grandparent"].)

FL-24-001353 - HOLIMAN VS HOLIMAN Petitioner's Request for Order re Attorney's Fees and Costs, etc.-- HEARING REQUIRED. This matter is post-judgment and therefore Family Code section 215 applies. While the Court notes that Petitioner has filed proof of personal service of Respondent, no Responsive Declaration or other opposition has been filed and the Court wishes to ensure that valid notice and service has been effectuated.

Aside from this, the Court has questions regarding the "reimbursement" requests with respect to the pending escrow. If there were unresolved liens and the mortgage on the subject residence was not current after escrow was opened, it is unclear how that did not result in unmarketable title and/or failure of pre-escrow conditions. In any event, the Court will need further evidence and testimony before granting reimbursement.

As for the putting funds aside out of escrow into the IOLTA of Petitioner's counsel, the Court is inclined to deny that request without prejudice but, if necessary and deemed appropriate, to order such funds deposited to a blocked, interest-bearing and FDIC insured bank pending further orders. Regarding the claim of omitted asset, i.e., the "Bay Area Painters and Tapers Pension," the Court notes that this plan was indeed expressly adjudicated in the parties final judgment: see Judgment, MSA, p. 10 ln. 15-15. Whether it has been divided or not does not alter its status as a non-omitted asset.

FL-25-000481- CISNEROS VS CUEVAS Petitioner's Request for Order re Vacate Dismissal, etc.-- DENIED, without prejudice. The Petition was filed on February 20, 2025. No proof of service of summons was ever filed and the Respondent did not file a Response or make a general appearance. Petitioner failed to appear at the Case Management Conference on July 25, 2025, and the Court issued an Order to Show Cause re dismissal for failure to appear and failure to prosecute. Petitioner then failed to respond and failed to appear at the show cause hearing and the Court ordered the case dismissed on April 3, 2026.

While Petitioner's order request has been filed within six (6) months of the Court's dismissal order and seeks relief pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 473(b), Petitioner's declaration does not establish sufficient facts for the Court to find that Petitioner's failures to appear and failure to prosecute resulted from mistake, surprise, inadvertence or excusable neglect. Rather, it appears that Petitioner deliberately chose not to prosecute or appear due to concerns regarding possible adverse immigration consequences. Petitioner's declaration does not explain how or when these discoveries were made and what will prevent the same thing from happening again.

That said, there is no time limit on alleging irreconcilable differences and Petitioner remains free to file a new dissolution petition whenever she chooses, but is advised if she does so to attend all court hearings and to make sure that she exercises due diligence in pursuing the divorce.

The following are the tentative ruling cases calendared before Judge Maria Elena Ramos-Ratliff in Department #25:

FL-25-001835 - GAYLORD VS GAYLORD Continued Hearing on Petitioner's Request for Order re Temporary Exclusive Management and Control, etc.-- HEARING REQUIRED. This case was formally designated "complex" pursuant to Family Code section 2032(d) pursuant to the Amended Findings and Order After Hearing of September 11, 2025. It is apparent to the Court that the continued conflict and disputes regarding operation and management of the subject community property businesses at issues is a