ERICA PLAM v. ERIC HUDSON PLAM

1 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 2 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 3 UNIFIED FAMILY COURT 4

5) 6 ERICA PLAM,) Case Number: FDI-22-796258) 7 Petitioner) Hearing Date: August 11, 2026) 8 VS.) Hearing Time: 9:00 AM) 9 ERIC HUDSON PLAM,) Department: 403) 10 Respondent) Presiding: BOBBY P. LUNA) 11) 12 REQUEST FOR ORDER RE: RECONSIDERATION OF 6/17/26 JEEP ORDER 13 TENTATIVE RULING 14 Having read and considered the pleadings, declarations, and other evidence submitted in this matter, the 15 Court makes the following findings and orders: 16 A. Procedural History 17 1) The parties are Petitioner Erica Plam and Respondent Eric Plam. 18 2) At the prior 5/19/26 hearing, Visiting Judge Kathleen Diesman issued orders regarding the 19 distribution of funds from the net sale proceeds of the parties’ San Francisco property, which 20 remained in counsel for Petitioner’s client trust account.

This order included an award of $25,201 21 to Respondent for the Jeep settlement refund from Petitioner’s share of the funds. See Findings 22 and Order After Hearing (FOAH) filed 6/17/26. 23 3) On 6/30/26, Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s 5/19/26 order (filed 24 6/17/26). Petitioner requests the Court reconsider awarding Respondent $25,201 for the Jeep 25 settlement refund from Petitioner’s share of the funds under Code of Civil Procedure section 26 1008. Petitioner argues that that the Court mischaracterized the Jeep as Respondent’s separate 27 property in its Final Statement of Decision (filed 10/7/25). 28 4) On 7/24/26, Petitioner filed a Supplemental Declaration in support of the Motion for 29 Reconsideration attaching the official Reporter’s Transcript from the 5/19/26 hearing.

1 5) On 7/29/26, Respondent filed a Responsive Declaration in opposition to Petitioner’s Motion for 2 Reconsideration. Respondent asserts that the $25,201 obligation originates from the Final 3 Statement of Decision (filed 10/7/25), not the Court’s 5/19/26 order (filed 6/17/26). Respondent 4 requests the Court disregard or strike Petitioner’s 7/24/26 Supplemental Declaration. Respondent 5 seeks an order compelling counsel for Petitioner to release the $25,201 to Respondent within 3 6 court days of the hearing with 10% interest accruing from 7/20/26.

Respondent requests the Court 7 reserve jurisdiction over Family Code section 271 sanctions against Petitioner. 8 B. Findings and Order 9 1) The Court could decline to consider Petitioner’s 7/24/26 Supplemental Declaration as the rules do 10 not provide for the filing of such a pleading; however, the Court finds doing so would not alter 11 the Court’s Code of Civil Procedure section 1008 analysis. The Court therefore considered 12 Petitioner’s 7/24/26 Supplemental Declaration. 13 2) Per Code of Civil Procedure section 1008(a), “When an application for an order has been made to 14 a judge, or to a court, and refused in whole or in part, or granted, or granted conditionally, or on 15 terms, any party affected by the order may, within 10 days after service upon the party of written 16 notice of entry of the order and based upon new or different facts, circumstances, or law, make 17 application to the same judge or court that made the order, to reconsider the matter and modify, 18 amend, or revoke the prior order.