DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
23FL0919·eldorado·Civil·Family Law
Hearing 2 months agoDROPPED

Kayla Burgess v. Kyle Burgess

Custody and visitation orders

Hearing date
Jun 18, 2026
Department
5
Judge
Prevailing
N/A
Appearance
Not required

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Causes of action

Parties

PlaintiffKayla Burgess
DefendantKyle Burgess

Ruling

LAW & MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS DEPARTMENT 5 June 18, 2026 8:30 a.m./1:30 p.m.

3. KAYLA BURGESS V. KYLE BURGESS 23FL0919

On December 26, 2025, Petitioner filed a Request for Order (RFO) seeking custody and visitation orders. The parties were referred to Child Custody Recommending Counseling (CCRC) with an appointment on January 20, 2026.

There is no Proof of Service for the RFO or the CCRC referral and only Petitioner attended the scheduled CCRC appointment.

On February 2, 2026, Respondent filed Respondent’s Supplemental Declaration Re: Child Custody Recommending Counseling. It was served on January 28th.

Respondent filed a Responsive Declaration to Request for Order on March 9th. It was served on March 6th.

After reviewing the filings by Respondent, it does appear that he has actual knowledge of the RFO and the CCRC referral and he is not objecting to service, therefore, the court finds any potential defect in service was waived and the matter may be reached on the merits.

The matter came before the court on March 26th at which time the parties were rereferred to CCRC and a review hearing was set for the present date.

On April 23, 2026, only Respondent appeared for the CCRC appointment. The RFO is dropped from calendar due to the failure of the moving party, Petitioner, to attend the CCRC appointment.

TENTATIVE RULING #3: THE RFO IS DROPPED FROM CALENDAR DUE TO THE FAILURE OF THE MOVING PARTY, PETITIONER, TO ATTEND THE CCRC APPOINTMENT.

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