JOVEN VS JOVEN

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

Pursuant to the Court's Findings and Order After Hearing of July 23, 2026, the hearing on this matter was continued to permit review of recent filings and for the parties to continue meet and confer efforts, as required both by the Family Law Rules of Court and the Civil Discovery Act. The result of these good faith meet and confer efforts will be addressed first by counsel.

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

687966 - RIVERS VS RIVERS Petitioner's Request for Order re Omitted Assets, etc., and Motion re Joinder-- HEARING REQUIRED.

It appears that the summons re joinder issued before the Court granted Petitioner's motion for joinder. If so, this is a clerical error as issuance of the summons and service of the pleading constituting the basis or cause of action for joinder of a non-party other than a pension plan or party claiming custody or visitation rights with respect to a minor child were not ordered by the Court. (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 5.24(a),(b).)

The governing rule for permissive joinder applicable here provides: If the court orders that a person be joined as a party to the proceeding under this rule, the court must direct that a summons be issued on Summons (Joinder) (form FL-375) and that the claimant be served with a copy of Notice of Motion and Declaration for Joinder (form FL-371), the pleading attached thereto, the order of joinder, and the summons. The claimant has 30 days after service to file an appropriate response. (Id., 5.24(e), emphasis added.)

Here, non-party has filed a Responsive Declaration and objects to the basis for permissive joinder and also requests a continuance of the hearing to address Petitioner's disputed factual allegations. This dispute cannot be resolved at a short-cause, non-evidentiary hearing.

That said, as the non-party and Petitioner are both represented, the Court directs counsel to meet and confer in good faith as to whether, at least as a matter of permissive joinder, non-party is an appropriate candidate for joinder and whether the matter may be expedited to avoid the necessity of vacating and re-issuing the summons re joinder, and also as to whether it is more expedient for Petitioner to intervene in the allegedly related dissolution action involving non-party than to pursue such claims in this very old dissolution action. The Court will reserve jurisdiction over the omitted assets order request until the joinder question has been resolved.