Petitioner's Request for Order re Spousal Support; Petitioner's Request for Order re Expert Witness Fees
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.
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?”
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