Anthony Metcalf Schwartz v. Grace Maria Schwartz

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

5) 6 ANTHONY METCALF SCHWARTZ,) Case Number: FDI-18-790180) 7 Petitioner) Hearing Date: June 16, 2026) 8 VS.) Hearing Time: 9:00 AM) 9 GRACE MARIA SCHWARTZ,) Department: 403) 10 Respondent) Presiding: BOBBY P. LUNA) 11) 12 REQUEST FOR ORDER RE: ATTORNEY'S FEES AND COSTS, DECLARE COM. PROPERTY; 13 ENFORCE ORDERED SPOUSAL SUPPORT ORDERS, (MORE) 14 TENTATIVE RULING 15 Having read and considered the pleadings, declarations, and other evidence submitted in this matter, the 16 Court makes the following findings and orders: 17 A.

Procedural History 18 1) The parties are Petitioner Anthony Metcalf Schwartz and Respondent Grace Maria Schwartz. 19 2) On 2/10/26, Respondent filed a Request for Order seeking $7,500 in attorney’s fees, enforcement 20 of supposal support and “lump-sum payments” ordered by the Court, sanctions, and “a finding of 21 perjury”. The Court notes section 8(a) – 8(c) are completed on form FL-300 (Request for Order); 22 however, Respondent did not check the section 8 box, “Time for Service/ Time Until Hearing” or 23 the “Temporary Emergency Orders” box in the caption of the form.

Respondent concurrently 24 filed a declaration entitled Request for a Long-Cause Hearing, a Memorandum of Points and 25 Authorities, and a declaration entitled Declaration in Support of An Order Shortening Time. The 26 matter was set for hearing on the Court’s regular calendar on 4/30/26. 27 3) There is no Proof of Service on file indicating Respondent’s 2/10/26 Request for Order and 28 supportive pleadings were served on Petitioner. 29 4) Petitioner did not file a Responsive Declaration.

1 5) On 4/16/26, counsel Petitioner filed a Substitution of Attorney indicating Petitioner is now self- 2 representing. 3 6) At the prior 4/30/26 hearing, the Court continued the matter to 6/16/26 for lack of service. 4 7) There is still no Proof of Service on file indicating Respondent’s 2/10/26 Request for Order and 5 supportive pleadings were served on Petitioner. 6 B. Findings and Order 7 1) Given that Respondent was previously provided additional time to effectuate proper service and 8 failed to do so, the Court finds good cause to DENY Respondent’s Request for Order filed 9 2/10/26 without prejudice (i.e., Respondent may refile). 10 2) The Court will prepare the Findings and Order After Hearing. 11

15

19

23

27

29