DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
FDI-25-801820·sf·FamilyLaw·Dissolution of Marriage
Hearing 17 days agoGRANTED in part; DENIED in part; CONTINUED in part.

Abubakr Jurakhanov v. Alisia Berezenko

Request for Order Compelling Petitioner's Disclosures; Bifurcation

Hearing date
Aug 4, 2026
Department
403
Prevailing
Respondent
Next hearing
Sep 29, 2026

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PetitionerAbubakr Jurakhanov
RespondentAlisia Berezenko

Ruling

1 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 2 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 3 UNIFIED FAMILY COURT 4

5) 6 ABUBAKR JURAKHANOV,) Case Number: FDI-25-801820) 7 Petitioner) Hearing Date: August 4, 2026) 8 VS.) Hearing Time: 9:00 AM) 9 ALISIA BEREZENKO,) Department: 403) 10 Respondent) Presiding: BOBBY P. LUNA) 11) 12 REQUEST FOR ORDER CHANGE OF ORDER COMPELLING PETITIONER'S DISCLOSURES, 13 BIFURCCATION 14 TENTATIVE RULING 15 Having read and considered the pleadings, declarations, and other evidence submitted in this matter, the 16 Court makes the following findings and orders: 17 A. Procedural History 18 1) The parties are Abubaker Jurakhanov and Respondent Alisia Berenzenko. 19 2) On 8/20/25, Petitioner filed a Petition for Dissolution. 20 3) On 2/2/26, Respondent filed a Response and Request for Dissolution. 21 4) On 5/20/26, Respondent filed a Declaration Regarding Service of Declaration of Disclosure and 22 Income and Expense Declaration indicating her Preliminary Declaration of Disclosure was served 23 on Petitioner by mail on 2/20/26. 24 5) On 6/16/26, Respondent filed a Request for Order seeking to compel compliance with mandatory 25 disclosure requirements under Family Code section 2104.

Respondent requests the Court set the 26 matter for Status Conference or Trial Setting so the case can proceed to final judgment. 27 Respondent also requests determination of the date of separation (as 5/1/23) and bifurcation of 28 trial and termination of marital status. Respondent asserts that Petitioner refuses to cooperate to 29

1 complete the divorce process. The Court notes Respondent references mandatory form FL-315 in 2 several attachments to the Request for Order; however, no FL-315 is included. 3 6) On 6/30/26, Respondent filed a Proof of Service indicating the Request for order was served on 4 Petitioner by mail on 6/25/26. 5 7) Petitioner did not file a Responsive Declaration. 6 B. Findings and Order 7 1) Respondent’s request that the Court order Petitioner to serve the preliminary declaration of 8 disclosure and file a Declaration Regarding Service of Declaration of Disclosure and Income and 9 Expense Declaration (form FL-141) is GRANTED. 10 2) By 8/11/26, Petitioner shall serve Respondent with the preliminary declaration of disclosure and 11 file form FL-141. 12 3) Respondent’s requests for the Court to set the matter for Status Conference or Trial Setting are 13 DENIED without prejudice as the Court finds such requests are premature.

However, should 14 Petitioner fail to follow the order set forth above and continue not to cooperate in this proceeding, 15 Respondent may file an At Issue Memorandum to request a Status Conference at which time a 16 trial date can be requested. 17 4) For the Court to grant an early and separate trial on the issues of status-only dissolution and date 18 of separation, mandatory form FL-315 must be submitted. 19 5) Accordingly, Respondent’s requests for the Court to grant an early and separate trial on the issues 20 of status-only dissolution and date of separation are CONTINUED to 9/29/26 at 9 AM. 21 6) Respondent shall file form FL-315 at least 10 days in advance of the hearing. 22 7) The Court will prepare the Findings and Order After Hearing. 23

27

29

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