DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
24FL1183·eldorado·Civil·Family Law
Hearing 15 days agoMatter dropped from calendar for failure to file timely declaration.

Joanne Ruggeri v. Christopher Ruggeri

Review hearing

Hearing date
Aug 6, 2026
Department
5
Judge
Prevailing
N/A
Appearance
Not required

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffJoanne Ruggeri
DefendantChristopher Ruggeri

Ruling

LAW & MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS DEPARTMENT 5 August 6, 2026 8:30 a.m./1:30 p.m.

19. JOANNE RUGGERI V. CHRISTOPHER 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 June 11, 2026.

On June 11, 2026, parties and counsel appeared for the hearing. Neither party had filed a Supplemental Declaration. Parties requested one further continuance as they had reached a full agreement which was reduced to writing and awaiting signatures. The court granted the request, however, cautioned that there would be no further continuances.

Respondent filed and served a Supplemental Declaration on July 28, 2026. The court finds that is less than 10 days prior to the hearing. Therefore, the court is not considering it.

The court drops the matter from calendar.

TENTATIVE RULING #19: THE MATTER IS DROPPED FROM CALENDAR DUE TO THE FAILURE TO FILE A TIMELY SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION.

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