DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
FL0003028·nevada·Civil·Dissolution
Hearing 6 months agoCONTINUED

Lupo, Michelle v. Lupo, Loius John

Status Conference

Hearing date
Mar 6, 2026
Department
3
Judge
Prevailing
N/A
Next hearing
Sep 4, 2026

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PetitionerLupo, Michelle
RespondentLupo, Loius John

Ruling

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION 03/06/2026, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0003028 Petitioner: Lupo, Michelle Attorney: Self-Represented Respondent: Lupo, Loius John Attorney: Self-Represented

1. Status Conference is continued to 09/04/2026, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 3 of Superior Court of California, County of Nevada, Nevada City Branch. Please check the Court website tentative ruling page to see if a tentative ruling has been posted and if your appearance is necessary. Tentative ruling should be posted on or before 09/01/2026.

2. The Court notes that the following are still required: a. FL20 Status Conference Questionnaire (Nevada County) from Petitioner. b. FL20 Status Conference Questionnaire (Nevada County) from Respondent. c. The Court notes that FL-141 forms have been filed by both parties. Local FL 20 Status Conference Questionnaire from each party should address the resolved issues, the unresolved issues, whether the case would benefit from supervised settlement conference and / or is ready for trial setting.

3. The required forms shall be served and filed no later than ten (10) days before 09/04/2026, the next Status Conference date stated in item 1.

4. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference.

__________________________________________________________________

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