| Case | County / Judge | Motion | Ruling | Indexed | Hearing |
|---|
Amended Request for Order regarding property assets
LAW & MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS DEPARTMENT 5 April 9, 2026 8:30 a.m./1:30 p.m.
6. HOPE KINSMAN V. JEREMY KINSMAN 25FL0256
On March 9, 2026, Respondent filed and served an Amended Request for Order (RFO) seeking a variety of orders.
Petitioner filed and served her Responsive Declaration to Request for Order on March 26th.
Respondent filed and served a Declaration on March 27th. Petitioner filed an Objection and Request to Strike on April 1st.
Petitioner objects to Section 12 and the last three paragraphs of Respondent’s Declaration as these portions of the declaration improperly include statements made during settlement negotiations. The objection is sustained. The court strikes Section 12 and the last three paragraphs of Respondent’s March 27th Declaration.
Respondent asks the court to review the parties’ assets and make orders regarding the characterization of those assets. He further asks that the parties be ordered to correct and supplement any inaccurate or incomplete financial disclosures.
Petitioner opposes the requests in their entirety and notes that Respondent’s default has been taken. Issues regarding property division are to be the subject of a proveup hearing, not an RFO. Additionally, Petitioner notes that the original RFO requested a protective order for discovery, but the “amended” RFO makes entirely different requests and it is unclear what exactly is being requested of the court. Finally, Petitioner requests $1,500 in sanctions pursuant to Family Code § 271 or Civil Procedure § 128.5.
Given that Respondent does not include his request for a protective order in his amended RFO, it appears the request has been dropped and therefore, the court declines to rule on it.
The parties are ordered to appear to select dates for a prove-up hearing.
The court reserves jurisdiction on Petitioner’s request for sanctions until the time of the hearing.
TENTATIVE RULING #6: PETITIONER’S OBJECTION IS SUSTAINED. THE COURT STRIKES SECTION 12 AND THE LAST THREE PARAGRAPHS OF RESPONDENT’S MARCH 27TH DECLARATION. GIVEN THAT RESPONDENT DOES NOT INCLUDE HIS REQUEST FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER IN HIS AMENDED RFO, IT APPEARS THE REQUEST HAS BEEN DROPPED AND THEREFORE THE COURT DECLINES TO RULE ON IT.
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?”
LAW & MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS DEPARTMENT 5 April 9, 2026 8:30 a.m./1:30 p.m.
THE PARTIES ARE ORDERED TO APPEAR TO SELECT DATES FOR A PROVE-UP HEARING.
THE COURT RESERVES JURISDICTION ON PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS UNTIL THE TIME OF THE HEARING.
NO HEARING ON THIS MATTER WILL BE HELD UNLESS A REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT IS TRANSMITTED ELECTRONICALLY THROUGH THE COURT’S WEBSITE OR BY PHONE CALL TO THE COURT AT (530) 621-6725 BY 4:00 P.M. ON THE DAY THE TENTATIVE RULING IS ISSUED. CAL. RULE CT. 3.1308; LOCAL RULE 8.05.07; SEE ALSO LEWIS V. SUPERIOR COURT, 19 CAL.4TH 1232, 1247 (1999). NOTICE TO ALL PARTIES OF A REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT AND THE GROUNDS UPON WHICH ARGUMENT IS BEING REQUESTED MUST BE MADE BY PHONE CALL OR IN PERSON BY 4:00 P.M. ON THE DAY THE TENTATIVE RULING IS ISSUED. CAL. RULE CT. 3.1308; LOCAL RULE 8.05.07.