RAMOS VS RAMOS

which she relied made to her by Respondent, Respondent's appearance and testimony to corroborate these allegations is of interest to the Court.

Lastly, the Court notes that, prior to the entry of Respondent's default, and the Court's dismissal order, a Findings and Order After Hearing dated August 11, 2025 by the Court's predecessor in this Department made certain orders that included temporary spousal support expressly noted to be "interim." Given this, the Court has independent authority to set aside the dismissal pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 583.161(b) ["An order for spousal support has been issued in connection with the proceeding and the order has not been terminated by the Court"].)

The Court's dismissal order of May 8, 2026, does not expressly state termination of the existing support order and the Court may or may not exercise discretion as to termination of the interim support order by operation of law upon entry of the dismissal order.

The following are the tentative ruling cases calendared before Judge Maria Elena Ramos-Ratliff in Department #25:

FL-22-000365 - RAMOS VS RAMOS Petitioner's Request for Order re Spousal Support, etc.-- HEARING REQUIRED. As with the last order request filed by Petitioner, there is again no proof of service of Respondent on file. This is a jurisdictional requirement because the matter is post-judgment. (Fam. Code, Sec. 215(a).) Petitioner must appear and demonstrate good cause to continue the hearing to effectuate valid service on Respondent or the matter will be dropped.

FL-24-000007 - SUAREZ VS SUAREZ Petitioner's Request for Order re Enforce Judgment-- GRANTED, and unopposed. Proof of personal service of Respondent is on file and demonstrates presumptively valid and timely notice and service of Respondent in compliance with the Rules of Court and Family Code section 215. Respondent did not file and serve a Responsive Declaration or other opposition. Accordingly, on the basis of Petitioner's declaration and the parties' final judgment in this matter entered on July 18, 2025, the request is granted.

If Respondent does not comply and cooperate, then Petitioner may seek an order ex parte to have the Clerk of the Court appointed elisor to sign any necessary and appropriate documents on Respondent's behalf to effectuate sale of the subject property, but this is conditioned upon Petitioner's compliance with the Local Rules regarding elisors. (See, Local Rules, rule 7.08(A).)

FL-24-001308 - SOLORIO VS SOLORIO Continued Hearing on Court's Motion-- HEARING REQUIRED. Pursuant to the Court's Findings and Order After Hearing of June 5, 2026, this matter was set for continued hearing and briefing on the issues of current child and spousal support orders, as well as whether an alternative valuation date should apply to the community business. The Court has received and reviewed the parties' briefing and counsel are invited to appear and be heard unless they wish to submit the alternative valuation date decision on the briefs. Either way, counsel are directed to meet and confer once again prior to the hearing in an effort to resolve the matter without further time and expense, as they are required to do. (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 5.98(a).)