Request for Dismissal; Request for Order to set aside support orders
1 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 2 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 3 UNIFIED FAMILY COURT 4
5) 6 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO,) Case Number: FCS-12-347677) 7 Petitioner) Hearing Date: August 4, 2026) 8 VS.) Hearing Time: 9:00 AM) 9 CHUCK JAMES JACOBS,) Department: 404) 10 Respondent) Presiding: AI MORI) 11) 12 **DE NOVO HEARING** SET FOR REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL PER REVIEW OF 13 COMMISIONER'S FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATION FILED 07/21/26 14 TENTATIVE RULING 15 Having read and considered the pleadings, declarations, and other evidence submitted in this matter, the 16 Court makes the following findings and orders: 17 A.
Procedural History 18 1) The parties in this matter are the County of San Francisco, Respondent Chuck Jacobs (Father), 19 and Petitioner Brianne Taylor (Mother). The parties have one minor child, Alani (DOB: 20 3/5/2012). 21 2) This matter has been pending since 2012. Genetic testing of Father and Alani was completed in 22 2013 and a Judgment Regarding Parental Obligations was entered on 1/30/2013. Numerous child 23 support orders have been entered thereafter. 24 3) Per the Order After Hearing filed 4/7/2026, Commissioner Rahim adjudicated Father's Request 25 for Order filed 2/27/2026 in which Father asserted that the San Francisco Superior Court lacked 26 both personal jurisdiction over him as well as subject matter jurisdiction over this child support 27 action, and requested that the Judgment be set aside and vacated.
Commissioner Rahim denied 28 the request, finding that Father consented to the Court's jurisdiction by filing an Answer to the 29
1 Summons and Complaint on 9/7/2012, appearing at prior hearings, and failing to raise any 2 objection to personal jurisdiction at prior proceedings. 3 4) That same day, on 4/7/2026, Father filed another Request for Order seeking the same relief on the 4 same grounds as set forth in his 2/24/2026 Request for Order. That Request for Order was set for 5 hearing on 6/9/2026 in Dept. 414. 6 5) Per the Order After Hearing filed 6/9/2026, at the hearing on 6/9/2026, Judge Pro Tem Harding 7 adjudicated Father’s Request for Order filed 4/7/2026 and denied Father’s request to set aside 8 prior child support orders without prejudice. 9 6) That same day, on 6/9/2026, Father filed two additional, identical Requests for Order again 10 asking the Court to set aside prior child support orders on the same grounds as set forth in his 11 Request for Order filed 4/7/2026.
Father also raised several new theories for his requested relief, 12 including coercion, duress, and fraud; violation of separation of powers; lack of due process; 13 absence of a voluntary and informed agreement; misrepresentation by his attorney; conflict of 14 interest; and other grounds. One of these Requests for Order was set for hearing on 7/21/2026 in 15 Dept. 414 and the other Request for Order was set for hearing on 8/6/2026 in Dept. 404. 16 7) On 7/21/2026, a hearing was held before Commissioner Rahim.
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?”
Father objected to Commissioner 17 Rahim hearing the matter and requested that it instead be heard by a Superior Court Judge. That 18 same day, Commissioner Rahim issued Findings and Recommendation of Commissioner, 19 wherein Commissioner Rahim recommended that Father’s 6/9/2026 Request for Order be denied, 20 and the matter was set for a de novo hearing in Dept. 404 on 8/4/2026. 21 B. Findings and Order 22 1) On the Court’s own motion, the hearing currently set for 8/6/2026 in Dept. 404 is hereby 23 advanced to 8/4/2026 to be heard together with Father’s identical Request for Order, both filed 24 6/9/2026. 25 2) Father’s Requests for Order filed 6/9/2026 are denied in their entirety.
The Court finds these 26 Requests for Order seek the same relief as the Requests for Order previously filed and 27 adjudicated on 4/7/2026 and 6/9/2026. The Court construes Father’s Requests for Order filed 28 6/9/2026 to be motions for reconsideration. The Court finds Father failed to raise new facts, 29
1 circumstances, or law that could have been brought at the time of the prior hearings, as required 2 by Code of Civil Procedure section 1008. 3 3) The Court further finds good cause to deny Father’s Requests for Order filed 6/9/2026 on their 4 merits. 5 4) Father is admonished that continued filing of repetitive motions seeking identical relief may 6 result in the Court deeming Father a vexatious litigant. 7 5) The Court will prepare the Findings and Order After Hearing. 8
12
16
20
24
28
29