Chihiro Zabel v. Ian Zabel
Request for Order: Noncompliance with Disclosure Requirements
Motion type
Monetary amounts referenced
Parties
Ruling
1 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 2 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 3 UNIFIED FAMILY COURT 4
5) 6 CHIHIRO ZABEL,) Case Number: FDI-25-801728) 7 Petitioner) Hearing Date: August 4, 2026) 8 VS.) Hearing Time: 9:00 AM) 9 IAN ZABEL,) Department: 403) 10 Respondent) Presiding: BOBBY P. LUNA) 11) 12 REQUEST FOR ORDER: NONCOMPLIANCE WITH DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS 13 TENTATIVE RULING 14 Having read and considered the pleadings, declarations, and other evidence submitted in this matter, the 15 Court makes the following findings and orders: 16 A. Procedural History 17 1) The parties are Petitioner Chihiro Zabel and Respondent Ian Zabel. 18 2) On 5/18/26, Petitioner filed a Request for Order seeking to compel compliance with disclosure 19 requirements and related orders under Family Code section 2107, including sanctions in the 20 amount of $10,500. 21 3) On 5/18/26, Petitioner filed an Income and Expense Declaration. 22 4) On 5/18/26, Petitioner filed a Memorandum of Points and Authorities. 23 5) On 5/18/26, Petitioner filed a supportive attorney declaration. 24 6) On 7/28/26, Petitioner filed a Reply Declaration reiterating the request for sanctions in the 25 amount of $10,500. 26 7) On 7/31/26, the parties submitted a proposed stipulated judgment. 27 B.
Findings and Order 28
1 1) The Court finds Petitioner’s 5/18/26 Request for Order is MOOT as the parties submitted a 2 stipulated judgment that the Court will review, approve, and send for processing. Once approved 3 and processed, the Court will mail a copy of the entered judgment to each party. 4 2) Accordingly, the 8/4/26 hearing is VACATED; no appearances are required on 8/4/26. 5 3) The Court will prepare the Findings and Order After Hearing. 6
10
14
18
22
26
29
Cited authorities
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?”