DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
21FL0051·eldorado·Civil·Parenting Plan Modification
Hearing 3 months agoDROPPED FROM CALENDAR

Judy Marcum v. Zachary Nugent

Request for Order for modification

Hearing date
May 21, 2026
Department
5
Judge
Prevailing
N/A

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffJudy Marcum
DefendantZachary Nugent

Ruling

LAW & MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS DEPARTMENT 5 May 21, 2026 8:30 AM/1:30 PM

15. JUDY MARCUM V. ZACHARY NUGENT 21FL0051

Respondent filed a Request for Order (RFO) on February 20, 2026, seeking a modification of the current parenting plan orders. The parties were referred to Child Custody Recommending Counseling (CCRC) for an appointment on March 23, 2026, and a review hearing on May 21, 2026. Proof of Service shows Petitioner was only served with the FL-300.

Petitioner filed an RFO on March 23, 2026, seeking a modification of the current parenting plan orders. Upon review of the court file, there is no Proof of Service showing Respondent was properly served.

Only Petitioner appeared at CCRC as such a single parent report was filed on May 7, 2026, with no recommendations. Copies were mailed to the parties on May 8th.

The court drops Respondent’s RFO from calendar due to the failure to properly serve Petitioner as well as for Respondent’s failure to appear at CCRC which was set at his request.

The court drops Petitioner’s RFO from calendar due to the failure to properly serve Respondent.

All prior orders remain in full force and effect.

TENTATIVE RULING #15: THE COURT DROPS RESPONDENT’S RFO FROM CALENDAR DUE TO THE FAILURE TO PROPERLY SERVE PETITIONER AS WELL AS FOR RESPONDENT’S FAILURE TO APPEAR AT CCRC WHICH WAS SET AT HIS REQUEST.

THE COURT DROPS PETITIONER’S RFO FROM CALENDAR DUE TO THE FAILURE TO PROPERLY SERVE RESPONDENT.

ALL PRIOR ORDERS REMAIN IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT.

NO HEARING ON THIS MATTER WILL BE HELD UNLESS A REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT IS TRANSMITTED ELECTRONICALLY THROUGH THE COURT’S WEBSITE OR BY PHONE CALL TO THE COURT AT (530) 621-6725 BY 4:00 P.M. ON THE DAY THE TENTATIVE RULING IS ISSUED. CAL. RULE CT. 3.1308; LOCAL RULE 8.05.07; SEE ALSO LEWIS V. SUPERIOR COURT, 19 CAL.4TH 1232, 1247 (1999). NOTICE TO ALL PARTIES OF A REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT AND THE GROUNDS UPON WHICH ARGUMENT IS BEING REQUESTED MUST BE MADE BY PHONE CALL OR IN PERSON BY 4:00 P.M. ON

LAW & MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS DEPARTMENT 5 May 21, 2026 8:30 AM/1:30 PM

THE DAY THE TENTATIVE RULING IS ISSUED. CAL. RULE CT. 3.1308; LOCAL RULE 8.05.07.

Cited authorities

Extracting citations 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

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share