DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
23FL1171·eldorado·Civil·Medical Expenses / Sanctions
Hearing 4 months agoCONTINUED

GAGE TAYLOR V. KAYLA TAYLOR

Request for Order (RFO) for medical expense reimbursement and enforcement of sanctions

Hearing date
Apr 16, 2026
Department
5
Judge
Prevailing
N/A
Next hearing
Jun 22, 2026
Appearance
Not required

Motion type

Browse all Motion for Sanctions rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffGAGE TAYLOR
DefendantKAYLA TAYLOR

Ruling

LAW & MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS DEPARTMENT 5 April 16, 2026 8:30 a.m./1:30 p.m.

20. GAGE TAYLOR V. KAYLA TAYLOR 23FL1171

Petitioner filed a Request for Order (RFO) on March 13, 2026, requesting reimbursement for uninsured medical expenses as well as enforcement of sanctions. Respondent and the Department of Child Support Services (DCSS) were personally served on March 13, 2026 and March 16, 2026 respectively.

DCSS filed a Responsive Declaration on March 25, 2026, requesting the child support issues be heard in Department 10, before the child support commissioner. Petitioner and Respondent were served on March 24, 2026.

Respondent filed a Responsive Declaration on April 8, 2026. There is no Proof of Service for this document. Even if the document had been properly served, Code of Civil Procedure section 1005(b) states all opposition papers are to be filed at least nine court days before the hearing date. Section 12c states, “[w]here any law requires an act to be performed no later than a specified number of days before a hearing date, the last day to perform that act shall be determined by counting backward from the hearing date, excluding the day of the hearing as provided by Section 12.” Cal. Civ. Pro. § 12c. Section 1005(b) in conjunction with Section 12c would have made April 3rd the last day for filing a response to the RFO. Therefore, the declaration is late filed and has not been considered by the court.

The court finds good cause to continue this matter to be heard on (Monday, June 22nd at 8:30 AM) in Department 10. The court reserves jurisdiction over the request for sanctions.

All prior orders remain in full force and effect.

TENTATIVE RULING #20: THE COURT FINDS GOOD CAUSE TO CONTINUE THIS MATTER TO BE HEARD ON (MONDAY, JUNE 22ND AT 8:30 AM) IN DEPARTMENT 10. THE COURT RESERVES JURISDICTION OVER THE REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS. 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

LAW & MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS DEPARTMENT 5 April 16, 2026 8:30 a.m./1:30 p.m.

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