| Case | County / Judge | Motion | Ruling | Date |
|---|
REQUEST FOR ORDER FOR CHANGE OF VISITATION; REQUEST FOR ORDER RE: SANCTIONS; FINDING OF VIOLATION OF TDVRO
1 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 2 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 3 UNIFIED FAMILY COURT 4
5) 6 AMIT MEHTA,) Case Number: FDI-25-802312) 7 Petitioner) Hearing Date: May 5, 2026) 8 VS.) Hearing Time: 9:00 AM) 9 COURTNEY MEHTA,) Department: 403) 10 Respondent) Presiding: BOBBY P. LUNA) 11) 12 REQUEST FOR ORDER FOR CHANGE OF VISITATION (PARENTING TIME, CONSOLIDATION 13 OF PROCEEDINGS; REQUEST FOR ORDER RE: SANCTIONS UNDER FC SECTION 271 AND 14 CCP SECTION 128.5; FINDING OF VIOLATION OF TDVRO 15 TENTATIVE RULING 16 Having read and considered the pleadings, declarations, and other evidence submitted in this matter, the 17 Court makes the following findings and orders: 18 I. Father’s Request for Order Filed 2/23/26 19 A. Procedural History 20 1) The parties are Petitioner Amit Mehta (Father) and Respondent Courtney Mehta (Mother). There 21 is one minor child subject to this proceeding: Aadi Caleb Mehta (DOB: 10/22/23). 22 2) On 2/23/26, Father filed a Request for Order seeking modification of visitation and consolidation 23 of cases. The existing parenting plan was established in related case no. FDV-25-818798. 24 Pursuant to the existing order, Father has parenting time with the minor child on Tuesdays and 25 Thursdays from 4:00 p.m. – 7:00 p.m. and on Saturdays from 11:00 a.m. – 2:00 p.m., with 26 exchanges occurring at the Stonestown Mall (main entrance near Peet’s Coffee). Father requests 27 additional parenting time and consolidation of the domestic violence action (FDV-25-818798) 28 into the dissolution action (FDI-25-802312). 29
1 3) On 3/3/26, Mother filed a Responsive Declaration wherein she asks the Court to deny the relief 2 requested by Father. 3 4) On 3/30/26, the Court conducted a readiness hearing during which the matter was referred to 4 Family Court Services (FCS) Mediation on April 21, 2026 and set for return hearing on May 5, 5 2026. 6 5) On 4/28/26, Father filed “Reply Declaration of Petitioner in Support of RFO for Modification of 7 Parenting Time,” which has been read and considered by the Court. 8 6) On 4/28/26, Father filed a “Reply Declaration of Andrea Palash in Support of Petitioner’s RFO 9 for Modification of Parenting Time,” which has been read or considered by the Court. 10 7) On 5/2/26, Father filed “Petitioner’s Opposition to Respondent’s Motion to Strike Petitioner’s 11 Reply Pleadings,” which has been read and considered by the Court. The Court notes it did not 12 receive a “motion to strike” from Respondent. 13 B. Findings and Order 14 1) This Court has jurisdiction to make child custody orders in this case under the Uniform Child 15 Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act. A violation of this order may subject the party in 16 violation to civil or criminal penalties, or both. The country of habitual residence of the minor 17 child is the United States. 18 2) Father’s request for additional parenting time with the minor child is DENIED. The Court will 19 not consider an increase in Father’s parenting time until the Request for Domestic Violence 20 Restraining Order (DVRO) has been adjudicated. 21 3) Father’s request that the Court consolidate related case no. FDV-25-818798 into case no. FDI-25- 22 802312 is GRANTED. Case no. FDI-25-802312 shall be the lead case; any and all future 23 pleadings shall be filed in the lead case number. 24 II. Mother’s Request for Order Filed 2/13/26 in Case No. FDV-25-818798 25 A. Procedural History 26 1) On 2/13/26, Mother filed a Request for Order seeking a finding that Father violated the 27 Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) by acting in concert with third parties to threaten Mother. 28 Mother seeks $10,000 total in Family Code section 271 sanctions (or half ($5,000) awarded under 29 Code of Civil Procedure section 128.5). Mother asserts that Father coordinated with his parents to
Extracted by Gemini Flash from the ruling text. Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.
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?”
Powered by Gemini Flash Lite. Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.
1 threaten Mother with criminal and civil consequences because Mother submitted transcripts of 2 recorded conversations between Father’s parents as evidence in her Request for Domestic 3 Violence Restraining Order (DVRO). Mother attached as Exhibit 1 a letter from attorney Douglas 4 Rappaport, who represents Father’s parents, requesting the transcripts be removed from the Court 5 record, and not be used in any fashion, as his clients were unlawfully recorded in their own home 6 in violation of Penal Code section 632. The matter was set for hearing on 5/5/26. 7 2) On 5/13/26, counsel for Mother filed a supportive declaration and declaration substantiating her 8 request for attorney’s fees sanctions. 9 3) On 4/22/26, Father filed a Responsive Declaration in opposition to Mother’s Request for Order. 10 Father states that the parties and Father’s parents all resided together in San Francisco for periods 11 of months at a time over the course of five years. Father asserts that Mother recorded Father’s 12 parents in their own bedroom without notice and then attached transcripts of these recordings to 13 her Request for DVRO. Father states that it is his understanding that both parties were asked – via 14 a letter from his parent’s counsel – to remove any recording of his parent’s private conversations 15 from the record. 16 4) On 4/22/26, Father filed objections to and a motion to strike portions of Mother’s declaration and 17 the declaration of Mother’s counsel. 18 5) On 4/22/26, Father filed a Memorandum of Points and Authorities. It is Father’s position that 19 Mother’s motion concerns the action of non-parties and their pursuit of legitimate legal claims to 20 protect privacy interests. Father asserts that the letter simply states the recordings were obtained 21 in contravention of Penal Code section 632 and requests the transcripts be removed from the 22 record. Father argues he is entitled to sanctions under Family Code section 271 or Code of Civil 23 Procedure section 128.5(f). 24 6) On 4/22/26, counsel for Father filed a declaration substantiating his request for $18, 310 to 25 $20,970 in attorney’s fees sanctions. 26 B. Findings and Order 27 1) Preliminarily, the Court rules on Father’s objections to and motion to strike portions of Mother’s 28 declaration and the declaration of Mother’s counsel filed 4/22/26 as follows: 29 a. Objections to declaration of Mother:
1 i. Father’s objection NO. 1 is SUSTAINED. The Court will consider this request 2 stricken. 3 ii. Father’s objection NO. 2 is SUSTAINED. The Court will consider this request 4 stricken. 5 iii. Father’s objection NO. 3 is OVERRULED. 6 iv. Father’s objection NO. 4 is OVERRULED. 7 v. Father’s objection NO. 5 is SUSTAINED. The Court will consider this request 8 stricken. 9 vi. Father’s objection NO. 6 is OVERRULED. 10 vii. Father’s objection NO. 7 is SUSTAINED. The Court will consider this request 11 stricken. 12 viii. Father’s objection NO. 8 is OVERRULED. 13 ix. Father’s objection NO. 9 is OVERRULED. 14 x. Father’s objection NO. 10 is OVERRULED. 15 xi. Father’s objection NO. 11 is OVERRULED. 16 xii. Father’s objection NO. 12 is SUSTAINED. The Court will consider this request 17 stricken. 18 xiii. Father’s objection NO. 13 is SUSTAINED. The Court will consider this request 19 stricken. 20 b. Objections to declaration of Mother’s counsel: 21 i. Father’s objection NO. 1 is SUSTAINED. The Court will consider this request 22 stricken. 23 ii. Father’s objection NO. 2 is SUSTAINED. The Court will consider this request 24 stricken. 25 iii. Father’s objection NO. 3 is OVERRULED. 26 iv. Father’s objection NO. 4 is SUSTAINED. The Court will consider this request 27 stricken. 28 v. Father’s objection NO. 5 is SUSTAINED. The Court will consider this request 29 stricken.
1 vi. Father’s objection NO. 6 is OVERRULED. 2 vii. Father’s objection NO. 7 is SUSTAINED. The Court will consider this request 3 stricken. 4 viii. Father’s objection NO. 8 is SUSTAINED. The Court will consider this request 5 stricken. 6 ix. Father’s objection NO. 9 is SUSTAINED. The Court will consider this request 7 stricken. 8 2) Mother’s request for the Court to find that Father violated the TRO is DENIED. The Court agrees 9 with Father that his parents are entitled to pursue legitimate legal claims to protect their privacy 10 interests. Moreover, the Court finds that Father simply informing his parents that transcripts of 11 recordings of their private conversations were submitted as evidence in DVRO action is not a 12 violation of the TRO. Notably, both parties received the letter from Father’s parent’s counsel, 13 which requests the transcripts of private conversations between the parties be removed from the 14 record and not used by either party. 15 3) Accordingly, Mother’s request for sanctions is DENIED. 16 4) The Court, however, finds good cause to GRANT Father’s request for Family Code section 271 17 sanctions in the amount of $5,000. The Court finds that Mother engaged in litigation conduct that 18 frustrates the policy of promoting settlement in family law cases by filing the instant Request for 19 Order. Mother shall pay this balance in full by 6/5/26. 20 5) Counsel for Father shall prepare the Findings and Order After Hearing. 21 6) Preparation of Order: If you are directed by the court to prepare the order after hearing – within 22 10 calendar days of the hearing you must either: (a) Serve the proposed order to the other 23 party/counsel for approval, and follow the procedures set forth in CA Rules of Court, Rule 24 5.125(c), or (b) If the other party did not appear or the matter was uncontested, submit the 25 proposed order after hearing directly to the court. Failure to submit the order after hearing within 26 10 days may allow the other party to prepare a proposed order and submit it to the court in 27 accordance with CA Rules of Court, Rule 5.125(d). 28
29