DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
24FL1183·eldorado·Civil·Dissolution of Marriage
Hearing 2 months agoMatter dropped from calendar

Joanne Lynn Ruggeri v. Christopher P. Ruggeri

Review hearing

Hearing date
Jun 11, 2026
Department
5
Judge
Prevailing
N/A
Appearance
Not required

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffJoanne Lynn Ruggeri
DefendantChristopher P. Ruggeri

Ruling

LAW & MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS DEPARTMENT 5 June 11, 2026 8:30 AM/1:30 PM

9. JOANNE LYNN RUGGERI V. CHRISTOPHER P. RUGGERI 24FL1183

On March 11, 2026, the parties appeared before the court for a long cause trial. The parties reached agreements on all issues and agreed to set a review hearing for the present date.

Neither party has filed a supplemental declaration therefore, the court surmises there are no issues to bring before it and the review hearing is no longer needed.

The matter is dropped from calendar. All prior orders remain in full force and effect.

TENTATIVE RULING #9: THE MATTER IS DROPPED FROM CALENDAR AS NO SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATIONS HAVE BEEN FILED. 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 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