CHANDLERLYNN LESLIE v. DAVID CABRERA

LAW & MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS DEPARTMENT 4 MARCH 27, 2026 9:30 a.m.

1. CHANDLERLYNN LESLIE v. DAVID CABRERA 25FL1253

This ma er is before the court on Respondent’s Request for Order (RFO), filed February 6, 2026. The RFO requests that the court transfer venue to Santa Clara County for trial on Pe oner’s Request for Domes c Violence Restraining Order (“DVRO”). On December 30, 2025, Pe oner filed her Request for DVRO. A Temporary Restraining Order issued on December 31, 2025. Proof of service filed on January 15, 2026, indicates that Respondent was personally served with the DVRO documents on January 12, 2026. A hearing on the DVRO was originally set for January 29, 2026, but the hearing was vacated due to Judge Slossberg’s recusal. A er the ma er was reassigned to Judge Mayberry, a hearing was set for February 23, 2026. Due to the filing of Respondent’s RFO to transfer venue and his request to con nue the hearing on Pe oner’s DVRO un l a er his RFO is determined, the hearing on Pe oner’s DVRO was con nued to April 6, 2026. Respondent makes several arguments in support of his RFO to transfer venue of Pe oner’s DVRO to Santa Clara County. Respondent states that on January 2, 2026, he filed a Pe on to Determine Parental Rela onship in Santa Clara County Superior Court (SCCSC Case No. 26CP000001). On January 6, 2026, he filed a Request for DVRO in the same case. Those ac ons were taken prior to Respondent being served with Pe oner’s Request for DVRO in this case on or about January 12, 2026. Respondent argues that the El Dorado DVRO ac on should be consolidated with the Santa Clara ac on to avoid conflic ng rulings. Further, Respondent states that he lives and works in Santa Clara County. The par es’ minor child was born in Santa Clara County and lived there for most of his life un l Pe oner moved out of the county in late 2025. He asserts that all the events alleged by Pe oner in her Request for DVRO occurred in Santa Clara County, and all of the evidence and witnesses to the events alleged in Pe oner’s DVRO are located in Santa Clara County. Lastly, Respondent notes that Pe oner is employed as a court clerk with the El Dorado County Superior Court, which raises the appearance of bias in favor of Pe oner. To date, Pe oner has not filed a wri en response to Respondent’s RFO. The Domes c Violence Preven on Act (“DVPA”) provides broad venue op ons for filing a request for DVRO, and may be filed as follows: “(1) The county in which the pe oner resides or is temporarily located. [¶] (2) The county in which the defendant resides. [¶] (3) The county in which the offense occurred. [¶] (4) Any other court that

LAW & MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS DEPARTMENT 4 MARCH 27, 2026 9:30 a.m.

may have jurisdic on over the par es or the subject ma er of the case.” (