DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
22FL0270·eldorado·Civil·Property Adjudication
Hearing 3 months agoDROPPED

Shauna Cox v. Michael Bryant II

Request for Order (RFO) for property adjudication

Hearing date
May 28, 2026
Department
5
Judge
Prevailing
N/A
Appearance
Not required

Motion type

Browse all Petition rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffShauna Cox
DefendantMichael Bryant II

Ruling

LAW & MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS DEPARTMENT 5 May 28, 2026 8:30 AM/1:30 PM

4. SHAUNA COX V. MICHAEL BRYANT II 22FL0270

Respondent filed a Request for Order (RFO) on February 23, 2026, seeking orders adjudicating property that the court had reserved jurisdiction over, as well as clean up and access to the real property. There is no Proof of Service showing Petitioner, Minors’ Counsel, or the Department of Child Support Services were properly served.

Petitioner filed a Responsive Declaration on April 15, 2026. It was served on April 15, 2026, to Respondent, Minors’ Counsel, and the Department of Child Support Services. Petitioner does not raise the issue of the defect in service, and as such, the court deems she has waived the issue.

The court finds the defect in service is waived as to Petitioner only.

The court drops the matter from calendar due to the failure to properly serve the RFO on all required parties.

TENTATIVE RULING #4: 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