DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
PFS20210070·eldorado·Civil·Quash Request
Hearing 3 months agoDENIED (Dropped from calendar)

COUNTY OF EL DORADO V. DEVON MATHIS (OTHER PARENT: AUBREY HASKILL)

Request to quash RFO

Hearing date
May 7, 2026
Department
5
Judge
Prevailing
N/A
Appearance
Not required

Motion type

Browse all Motion to Quash rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffCOUNTY OF EL DORADO
DefendantDEVON MATHIS
OtherAUBREY HASKILL

Ruling

LAW & MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS DEPARTMENT 5 May 7, 2026 8:30 a.m./1:30 p.m.

14. COUNTY OF EL DORADO V. DEVON MATHIS (OTHER PARENT: AUBREY HASKILL)

Other Parent filed a Request for Order (RFO) on March 12, 2026, requesting the court quash the RFO filed by Respondent on February 27, 2026. Proof of Service shows the Department of Child Support Services was served on March 19, 2026. Upon review of the file, there is no Proof of Service showing Respondent was properly served.

The matter is dropped from calendar due to the lack of proper service.

TENTATIVE RULING #14: THE MATTER IS DROPPED FROM CALENDAR DUE TO THE LACK OF PROPER SERVICE.

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 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