DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
FL0002974·nevada·Civil·Family Law
Hearing 6 months agoCONTINUED

Spooner, Mark v. Landberg, Catherine

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

PetitionerSpooner, Mark
RespondentLandberg, Catherine

Ruling

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

Case No. FL0002974 Petitioner: Spooner, Mark Attorney: Self-Represented Respondent: Landberg, Catherine 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. FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. b. Corrected FL-115 Proof of Service of Summons. FL-115 is not complete. The address information is missing. If the original server is not available to correct this, the documents will need to be re-served. When the Court has the correct Proof of Service, the Court requires one of the following: i. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Declaration re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR ii.

Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14 Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County) if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. OR iii. FL-165 Request to Enter Default from Petitioner more than thirty days after Petition package has been served. If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141.

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