HUIZENGA VS HUIZENGA

THERE ARE NO TENTATIVES. The following are the tentative ruling cases calendared before Judge J. Richard Distaso in Department #13: THERE ARE NO TENTATIVES. The following are the tentative ruling cases calendared before Judge Sarah Birmingham in Department #14: FL-18-002388 - HUIZENGA VS HUIZENGA Respondent's Request for Order re Child Custody, etc.-- HEARING REQUIRED.

Proof of personal service of Petitioner is on file and no Responsive Declaration has been filed. That said, Petitioner recently retained counsel of record and parties are entitled to be heard via live testimony at any hearing or trial and the Court desires to hear from Petitioner's counsel on this matter.

The child custody and visitation requests are not eligible for tentative ruling and are scheduled for mediation. They are therefore not at issue here.

The elisor request appears premature. Ordinarily, such requests relate to matters involving marital property or pension plans when these have been adjudicated by Court order. The failure to sign military forms requiring spousal consent may or may not be appropriate for an elisor but the pre-condition for any elisor request entails non-compliance with a court order or other judgment requiring such compliance. That has yet to occur. Counsel are therefore directed to meet and confer in good faith with respect to the elisor request and the Court is confident that this request may be resolved by stipulation. (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 5.98(a).)

The following are the tentative ruling cases calendared before Judge Maria Elena Ramos-Ratliff in Department #25: FL-25-002765 - WELCH VS WELCH Respondent's Request for Order re "Other," etc.-- HEARING REQUIRED.

The Court granted temporary orders and an Order Shortening Time (OST), including the requirement of personal service. As of this, there is no proof of personal service on file as to Petitioner. Before the Court will entertain the merits, either Respondent must seek a continuance for good cause to effectuate proper service or Petitioner and/or Petitioner's counsel of record must appear and waive any objection.

Assuming the merits are reached, Respondent's counsel offers no authority for the multiple expensive and wide-reaching order requests involving electronic evidence. The Civil Discovery Act has specific rules and requirements for the production of electronic evidence, including limits on the nature and scope of such requests. There is no explanation tendered for why the already existing procedures available to Respondent have not been availed or why they would not obviate the need for the present order requests. As postured, the Court is inclined to deny all the requests without prejudice.