ROUSH VS ROUSH II

FL-26-001117 - BHOLA VS KHANNA Request for Order to Quash Service of Summons, or Alternatively to Stay or Dismiss Proceedings Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Sec.Sec. 418.10 and 410.30 -- DENIED.

Respondent Bhavya Khanna's RFO to Quash Service of Summons, or Alternatively to Stay or Dismiss Proceedings Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Sec.Sec. 418.10 and 410.30, is DENIED for the reasons set forth below.

The Court finds Respondent has not established any defect in service of process. The filed proof of service reflects personal service upon Respondent in California on April 27, 2026, and Respondent has not presented evidence demonstrating the service was invalid.

The Court further finds Respondent has not met her burden of demonstrating that California is a seriously inconvenient forum under Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 410.30. Although India appears to be a suitable alternative forum, the record reflects substantial California contacts, including the parties' residence in California during the marriage, Petitioner's alleged California residency, the existence of a California marital residence, Respondent's education and medical treatment in California, and personal service in California.

Balancing the relevant private and public interests, the Court concludes Respondent has not shown that the interests of substantial justice require that this matter be stayed or dismissed in favor of proceedings in India.

FL-25-002822 - DIAZ VS DIAZ Petitioner's Request for Order Reissuance re: Motion to Compel production of Preliminary Disclosures, etc -- HEARING REQUIRED.

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

The following are the tentative ruling cases calendared before Judge J. Richard Distaso in Department #13:

438118 - GARCIA VS GARCIA Petitioner's Request for Order re Elisor, etc.-- GRANTED, and unopposed.

The Court finds that proof of mail service of Respondent is on file and that Respondent's current address for mail service has been verified by Petitioner. Accordingly, notice and service in compliance with Family Code section 215 has been satisfied. Respondent did not file a Responsive Declaration or other opposition.

Accordingly, on the basis of Petitioner's declaration that the plan requires a new QDRO other than the one the Court previously approved and that Respondent continues to not cooperate with preparation and/or execution, Petitioner's request is granted. As before, Petitioner must comply with Local Rules, rule 7.08(A), by submission of the proposed order with attached QDRO for the Court's review and approval before the Clerk is authorized to sign in lieu of Respondent.