ALTAYYAR VS ALTAYYAR

8008889 - ALTAYYAR VS ALTAYYAR Respondent's Request for Order re Sale, etc.-- HEARING REQUIRED.

Pursuant to the Findings and Order After Hearing of January 24, 2024, in which the Court--among other things--relieved Petitioner's former counsel of record and directed that, going forward, Petitioner would be subject to electronic service due to his apparent residence abroad and that Petitioner's email address for electronic service would be provided.

Accordingly, the Court finds that Respondent's proofs of individual electronic service on Petitioner are in compliance with the Order Shortening Time and Family Code section 215 as to post-judgment order requests.

Petitioner has not filed a Responsive Declaration nor has submitted any other formal opposition. Petitioner has also not submitted a Notice of Remote Appearance but the Court has granted Respondent's request to appear remotely for this hearing. Under the circumstances, and in keeping with Family Code section 217, should Respondent appear in person or contact the Court prior to the hearing to appear remotely, the Court will entertain Respondent's testimony.

Turning to the merits, the Court is tentatively inclined to grant a sale order as to the subject properties based on a finding that said properties are subject to unreasonable risk of market loss based on the declarations and evidence submitted by Respondent. (Fam. Code, Sec. 2108.)

However, the Court is not inclined to find, at this time, that an unequal division or an award of attorney's fees and costs for breach of fiduciary duty, as alleged by Respondent, is warranted as Respondent's showing is largely conclusory and the factual findings necessary to obtain these remedies will entail a long-cause evidentiary hearing. These other requests are therefore denied without prejudice.

Lastly, if Petitioner refuses to cooperate or fails to timely respond to any documents that require his signature in order to effectuate this ruling, the Court intends to allow Respondent to apply ex parte for an order to appoint the Clerk as elisor to sign on Petitioner's behalf, subject to Respondent complying with the Local Rules regarding elisor requests. (Local Rules, rule 7.08(A).)

FL-23-001158 - JOVEN VS JOVEN Continued Hearing on Respondent's Request for Order re Motion to Quash, etc.-- HEARING REQUIRED.

Pursuant to the Findings and Order After Hearing (FOAH) of May 12, 2026, and the subsequent FOAH of June 25, 2026, the Court tentatively denied Respondent's motion to quash but reserved jurisdiction over the parties respective requests, counter-requests and objections, including retroactivity as to the latter.

All responsive documents to the subject subpoenas must be retained by the custodian of record pending further order of the Court and shall remain non-disclosed until such time. If there are any agreements or compromises with respect to the subject subpoenas, counsel are invited to apprise the Court of these at the start of the hearing. (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 5.98(a).)

The following are the tentative ruling cases calendared before Judge J. Richard Distaso in Department #13: THERE ARE NO TENTATIVES.

The following are the tentative ruling cases calendared before Judge Sarah Birmingham in Department #14: THERE ARE NO TENTATIVES.

The following are the tentative ruling cases calendared before Judge Maria Elena Ramos-Ratliff in Department #25: THERE ARE NO TENTATIVES.