DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
24FL0197·eldorado·Civil·Family Law
Hearing 2 months agoDROPPED

Ruben Wilburn v. Heather Vogel

Modification of custody and parenting plan

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

PlaintiffRuben Wilburn
DefendantHeather Vogel

Ruling

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

20. RUBEN WILBURN V. HEATHER VOGEL 24FL0197

Petitioner filed a Request for Order (RFO) on March 26, 2026, requesting a modification of the current child custody and parenting plan orders. The parties were referred to Child Custody Recommending Counseling (CCRC) with an appointment on April 23, 2026 and a review hearing on June 18, 2026. Upon review of the court file, there is no Proof of Service showing Respondent was properly served.

Only Petitioner appeared at the CCRC appointment. As such, a single parent report was filed with the court on April 23, 2026. Copies were mailed to the parties on April 27th.

Respondent has not filed a Responsive Declaration.

The court drops the matter from calendar due to the lack of proper service.

All prior orders remain in full force and effect.

TENTATIVE RULING #20: THE COURT DROPS THE MATTER FROM CALENDAR DUE TO THE LACK OF PROPER SERVICE. 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