WRIGHT VS WRIGHT

FL-21-001943 - WRIGHT VS WRIGHT Respondent's Request for Order re Motion to Quash Subpoenas, etc.-- DENIED. Respondent offers no legal ground or basis for objection and Respondent's other allegations of impropriety as a basis for quashing otherwise validly served subpoenas within the scope of discovery are meritless and borderline vexatious.

Procedurally, Respondent's motion does not comply with the Rules of Court for discovery motions and, among other things, there is no meet and confer declaration nor any particularized objections to the subpoenas at issue that would permit the Court to review the categories of documents sought and their discoverability versus any valid privileges or objections made by Petitioner.

FL-22-002644 - FERNANDEZ VS FERNANDEZ Petitioner's Request for Order re Change Venue-- HEARING REQUIRED. The Court understands there may be an agreement on this request and invites the parties to appear and be heard.

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

FL-23-003217 - BLANCO VS BLANCO Petitioner's Request for Order re "Other," etc.-- CONTINUED, at moving party's request. The Court signed Petitioner's Request to Reschedule Hearing on July 24, 2026. Accordingly, this hearing is vacated and no appearances are necessary.

The following are the tentative ruling cases calendared before Judge Sarah Birmingham in Department #14:

FL-22-002749 - MILA VS KEENER Petitioner's Request for Order re "Reimbursement," etc.-- HEARING REQUIRED. Proof of personal service on Respondent is on file and reflects presumptively valid and timely notice and service in compliance with Family Code section 215 and the Rules of Court. Respondent did not file a Responsive Declaration or other opposition.

That said, Petitioner is represented and while the request is termed "reimbursement," it is functionally a request to adjudicate the allegedly wrongfully withdrawn funds as an omitted asset. (Fam. Code, Sec. 2556.)

As such, there are factual questions and findings the Court must make in order to adjudicate an omitted asset or debt that would typically exceed the time allotted to a short-cause law and motion matter. This is particularly true where a further request is made that the Court impose sanctions and/or make an award of attorney's fees and costs. The parties shall appear and may address the Court as to whether this matter requires a long-cause evidentiary hearing.

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