| Case | County / Judge | Motion | Ruling | Date |
|---|
RFO for birth certificate change
LAW & MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS DEPARTMENT 5 April 30, 2026 8:30 AM/1:30 PM
16. MADDY AND JOHN NAVARRO V. MELISSA HOLMAN AND THOMAS BROWN JR.
Petitioner filed a Request for Order (RFO) on March 9, 2026, seeking a change in the minor’s birth certificate. Proof of Service does not show who was served as there are two Respondent’s. Further the Proof of Service does not indicate all the required documents were served.
The Proof of Service of Summons and Petition likewise does not show who was served. However, Respondents have filed a Response. As such, the court finds the defect in service of the Petition and Summons to be waived.
Respondents have not filed a Responsive Declaration to the RFO.
The court drops the matter from calendar due to the defects in service.
TENTATIVE RULING #16: THE MATTER IS DROPPED FROM CALENDAR DUE TO THE DEFECTS IN SERVICE.
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.
Extracted by Gemini Flash from the ruling text. Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.
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?”
Powered by Gemini Flash Lite. Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.