COLE VS COLE

FL-20-002124 - COLE VS COLE Petitioner's Request for Order re Child Custody, etc.-- HEARING REQUIRED.

The child custody and visitation request was mediated on July 27, 2026, and is not at issue for this hearing. Petitioner's request to change venue is based solely on her convenience and the residence of the minor children, but custody--both legal and physical--remains joint at this time. The parties' marital status has not been terminated and therefore a change of venue may not be granted merely on one party's convenience alone, but instead must be based on evidence that the convenience of witnesses and the ends of justice will be promoted by granting a change of venue. (Code Civ.

Proc., Sec. 397(c).) Petitioner's showing does not address either factor. While the parties are welcome to be heard, the Court is inclined to deny the request without prejudice at this time. Stability of the minor children's placement, including healthcare, education and extra-curricular activities is of paramount concern to the Court, as it no doubt is (or should be) for the parties.

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

FL-24-002050 - GILL VS GILL a) Petitioner's Request for Order re Motion to Compel Discovery, etc.-- HEARING REQUIRED; b) Respondent's Request for Order re Bifurcation, etc.-- HEARING REQUIRED.

a) No Responsive Declaration or other opposition has been filed by Respondent or Respondent's counsel. Absent appearance and either demonstration that code-compliant responses have been served in response to Petitioner's motion, or a showing of good cause that circumstances render the imposition of discovery sanctions moot, the Court is inclined to grant the motion as unopposed and to order that responses, without objections, be served within ten (10) days of this ruling. The Court is inclined to reserve jurisdiction over sanctions subject to demonstrated compliance with discovery and the absence of further disputes.

In the alternative, if the parties and their counsel are so inclined, the Court will entertain any requests to have this dispute referred for an Informal Discovery Conference. The request to continue the trial date will be addressed in the Court's discretion at the hearing and in light of the Respondent's fulfillment of discovery obligations.

b) Joinder of all pension plans is a threshold requirement to bifurcation and early termination of marital status. Petitioner's counsel represents that some or all of Respondent's pension plans have not been "properly" joined. Counsel are invited to appear and apprise the Court as to whether this is or is not the case. Provided that there are no issues with plan joinder, or any defects are correctible, then the Court is inclined to grant the request as termination of marital status pendente lite is favored by public policy and Petitioner's other concerns are all easily addressed by the "protective conditions" that the Court may grant and impose in the attachment to the "status-only" judgment that results from granting termination of marital status. (Fam.