Request for Order re Stay
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.
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?”
Code, Sec. 2337; Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 5.390; Gionis v. Superior Court (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 786, 789-790 [due to public policy in favor, moving party carries the burden with only "slight" evidence whereas opposing party must demonstrate "compelling" evidence of irreparable harm or prejudice]; see, Hogoboom & King, Cal. Prac. Guide Family L. (TRG 2026) Ch. 11-D, Sec. 11:479.1-11:479.3 [noting the impact of the "vast array" of protective conditions available to alleviate prejudice to the non-moving party].)
The following are the tentative ruling cases calendared before Judge Sarah Birmingham in Department #14:
FL-20-000712 - BRADSHAW VS BRADSHAW Petitioner's Request for Order re Stay, etc.-- HEARING REQUIRED.
The Court previously and tentatively denied Petitioner's order request pursuant to the Findings and Order After Hearing of June 25, 2026, but continued the hearing to the present in order to permit Petitioner to file supplemental briefing. The Court has reviewed Petitioner's Brief filed on June 15, 2026. Primarily, Petitioner corrected the citation to Family Code section 3038 and argues that Family Code section 3151 provides applicable authority for her request and, in particular, subpart (c)(5) of that section, which states: (c) The child's counsel shall have the following rights: (5) Access to the child's medical, dental, mental health, and other health care records, school and educational records, and the right to interview school personnel, caretakers, health care providers, mental health professionals, and others who have assessed the child or provided care to the child.
The release of this information to counsel shall not constitute a waiver of the confidentiality of the reports, files, and any disclosed communications. Counsel may interview mediators; however, the provisions of Sections 3177 and 3182 shall apply.
On its face, the plain language of this section and all its subparts do not support Petitioner's position. If anything, it is to the contrary. Petitioner offers no precedential authority supporting her interpretation and the Court's independent research disclosed none. Certainly, minor's counsel may not waive the confidentiality and other privileges attaching to the medical records of the minor, but this section establishes that no such waiver obtains merely by minor's counsel seeking and obtaining them. The Court has discretion to restrict the scope of minor's counsel's assignment and, ultimately, to remove minor's counsel in the event of misconduct or when the best interests of the minor child compel such.
Petitioner also filed a further brief on July 16, 2026, that was not authorized by the Court's prior FOAH. Petitioner alleges a complaint by the minor against minor's counsel with the State Bar of California. The Court may or may not elect to consider the merits of this brief at the hearing but, as it purports to raise additional grounds not within the scope of Petitioner's original order request, the Court may instead require Petitioner to file and serve this a separate order request in order to provide all other parties and/or counsel the opportunity to respond and be heard on it. The Court will note, however, that Petitioner's allegations about this complaint are hearsay upon hearsay, and that the mere existence of a complaint to the State Bar tells the Court nothing about the merits of the charges.
The following are the tentative ruling cases calendared before Judge Maria Elena Ramos-Ratliff in Department #25: THERE ARE NO TENTATIVES.: