DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
PFL20090850·eldorado·Civil·Spousal Support Enforcement
Hearing about 2 months agoDROPPED FROM CALENDAR.

REMEDIOS BRISENO V. FRANCISCO BISENO

Request for Order (RFO) to enforce spousal support

Hearing date
Jul 2, 2026
Department
5
Judge
Prevailing
Defendant
Appearance
Not required

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffRemedios Briseno
DefendantFrancisco Biseno

Ruling

LAW & MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS DEPARTMENT 5 July 2, 2026 8:30 a.m./1:30 p.m.

11. REMEDIOS BRISENO V. FRANCISCO BISENO PFL20090850

Petitioner filed a Request for Order (RFO) on April 27, 2026. Proof of Service shows Respondent was personally served on June 10, 2026, in Mexico. Petitioner is requesting enforcement of the spousal support orders.

Respondent has not filed a Responsive Declaration.

The court drops the matter from calendar due to untimely service. Civil Procedure section 1005(b) states: “Unless otherwise ordered or specifically provided by law, all moving and supporting papers shall be served and filed at least 16 court days before the hearing. This would have made June 9, 2026, the last day for personal service.

All prior orders remain in full force and effect, including the orders for spousal support.

TENTATIVE RULING #11: THE MATTER IS DROPPED FROM CALENDAR DUE TO THE UNTIMELY SERVICE. ALL PRIOR ORDERS REMAIN IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT, INCLUDING THE ORDERS FOR SPOUSAL SUPPORT.

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