Todd Stanley v. Hannah Cole

LAW & MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS DEPARTMENT 5 March 26, 2026 8:30 a.m./1:30 p.m.

Respondent opposes the requests and asks that they be denied as res judicata. She further requests $5,000 in attorney fees for having to respond to Petitioner’s duplicative motion. She has submitted several objections the rulings on which are attached hereto.

First and foremost, the Motion for Reconsideration of the court’s “ruling issued on January 14, 2026” is denied. On January 14th the court ruled on Petitioner’s request for an Order Shortening Time (OST), it did not address custody or visitation. Moreover, the OST was requested on issues that are pending before the court for this hearing. As such, any motion to reconsider the court’s denial of the OST is moot and therefore, denied.

Regarding the request to “correct and clarify the record” it is unclear exactly what Petitioner is requesting. Presumably he would like the court to consider the evidence he submitted in his declaration however, he does not ask the court to actually reconsider or vacate its prior ruling. Nevertheless, the court finds that all of the issues raised in Petitioner’s RFO have already been ruled upon. Petitioner does not provide the court with any new or additional evidence that could not have been presented at trial or that has not already been considered by the court. As such, this request is denied.

Likewise, the request for a stay is denied. It is well settled law that “[t]he perfecting of an appeal shall not stay proceedings as to those provisions of a judgment or order which award, change, or otherwise affect the custody, including the right of visitation, of a minor child in any civil action...” Cal. Civ. Pro. § 917.7. The trial court maintains discretion over whether or not to stay such proceedings. Id. Here, the court does not find grounds to issue a stay on proceedings. This is especially in light of the fact that there was an automatic 30- day stay, which has already expired, and an additional 3-day stay issued by the appellate court. The court does not find grounds to further stay the proceedings. Accordingly, the request is denied.

Respondent’s request for sanctions is granted. An award for attorney’s fees and sanctions may be made pursuant to Family Code section 271 which states, in pertinent part, “...the court may base an award of attorney’s fees and costs on the extent to which the conduct of each party or attorney furthers or frustrates the policy of the law to promote settlement of litigation and, where possible, to reduce the cost of litigation by encouraging cooperation of the parties and attorneys. An award of attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to this section is in the nature of a sanction.” Fam. Code § 271(a).

Here, Petitioner filed an RFO on January 12th, an amended RFO on January 12th, an Application for an Order Shortening Time on January 13th, an RFO on January 14th, an ex

LAW & MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS DEPARTMENT 5 March 26, 2026 8:30 a.m./1:30 p.m.

parte request on January 20th, and an RFO on January 21st. Most of these RFOs seek to litigate and re-litigate the same issues over and over again. Petitioner’s repeated filings have unquestionably caused Respondent to incur unnecessary attorney’s fees. Petitioner’s actions fall squarely within the purview of Section 271 and as such the request for sanctions is granted. Petitioner is ordered to pay Respondent’s attorney $5,000 as and for sanctions pursuant to Family Code § 271. Payment may be made in one lump sum or in monthly increments of $250 commencing on April 1, 2026 and continuing on the 1st of each month until paid in full. If any payment is missed or late the entire amount shall become immediately due and payable.

Vexatious Litigant

Respondent asks that Petitioner be declared a vexatious litigant. She further requests that all issues set for March 26th be continued to May 7th due to the unavailability of her counsel.

While Respondent concedes that a party represented by counsel cannot be deemed a vexatious litigant and she notes her belief that Petitioner was represented by counsel as of March 13th she is still seeking to have the court issue the vexatious litigant designation. The court’s file does not reflect that Petitioner is currently represented. According to the Notice of Limited Scope Representation in the court’s file, Ms. Bentley was retained by Petitioner only “up to and including the hearing set for 2/19/26.” Additionally, even if he were represented as of today’s date, all of the filings at issue were made by Petitioner as a pro se litigant and any vexatious litigant designation would apply to him only in his capacity as a pro se litigant. As such, the court does find grounds to proceed with the motion on the merits.

The purpose of the vexatious litigant statute is to curb the misuse of the judicial process by self-represented litigants who repeatedly file unmeritorious litigation, or motions, or who repeatedly attempt to relitigate issues that have already been decided by the court. Shalant v. Girardi, 51 Cal. App. 4th 1164 (2011). To be declared a vexatious litigant the self-represented party must meet at least one of four statutory definitions. These definitions include an individual who “...repeatedly relitigates or attempts to relitigate, in propria persona, either (1) the validity of the determination against the same defendant or defendants as to whom the litigation was finally determined or (ii) the cause of action, claim, controversy, or any of the issues of fact or law, determined or concluded by the final determination against the same defendant or defendants as to whom the litigation was finally determined;” or one who “repeatedly files unmeritorious motions, pleadings, or

LAW & MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS DEPARTMENT 5 March 26, 2026 8:30 a.m./1:30 p.m.

other papers, conducts unnecessary discovery, or engages in other tactics that are frivolous or solely intended to cause unnecessary delay.” Cal. Civ. Pro. § 391(b)(2) & (b)(3). A finding of as few as three motions on the same issue has been upheld as grounds for a vexatious litigant ruling. Goodrich v. Sierra Vista Reg’l Med. Ctr., 246 Cal. App. 4th 1260 (2016).

Given the sheer number of motions filed by Petitioner within the last year, almost all of which have been found to be without merit, Petitioner’s actions are clearly those of a vexatious litigant. In fact, on October 23, 2025, the court advised Petitioner to refrain from filing further baseless motions. Nevertheless, as it stands today Petitioner has filed 7 RFOs in the past year, most of which were filed on an ex parte basis and almost all of which have been denied. He also filed a request for a Domestic Violence Restraining Order which was denied and was seemingly filed solely to affect the court’s custody rulings.

In light of Petitioner’s repeated requests to litigate the same issues without any legal basis to do so, his misuse of the ex parte process, and his continual filing of meritless RFOs, it stands to reason that Petitioner is misusing the litigation process and therefore a vexatious litigant designation is proper.

Petitioner is hereby deemed a vexatious litigant. Petitioner is prohibited from making any in propria persona filing of any new litigation, petition, application, or motion in the State of California without first obtaining leave of the presiding justice where the litigation is proposed to be filed. Disobedience of this order may be punishable by contempt of court.

Respondent is directed to prepare the Findings and Orders After Hearing (FOAH), however this order is effective immediately upon the court’s adoption of the tentative ruling and is not conditioned on the preparation of the FOAH.

TENTATIVE RULING #13: THE COURT’S RULINGS ON RESPONDENT’S OBJECTIONS ARE ATTACHED HERETO. PETITIONER’S JANUARY 14TH RFO AND HIS JANUARY 21ST RFO ARE BOTH DENIED IN THEIR ENTIRETY.

RESPONDENT’S REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS IS GRANTED. PETITIONER IS ORDERED TO PAY RESPONDENT’S ATTORNEY $5,000 AS AND FOR SANCTIONS PURSUANT TO FAMILY CODE § 271. PAYMENT MAY BE MADE IN ONE LUMP SUM OR IN MONTHLY INCREMENTS OF $250 COMMENCING ON APRIL 1, 2026 AND CONTINUING ON THE 1ST OF EACH MONTH UNTIL PAID IN FULL. IF ANY PAYMENT IS MISSED OR LATE THE ENTIRE AMOUNT SHALL BECOME IMMEDIATELY DUE AND PAYABLE.

LAW & MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS DEPARTMENT 5 March 26, 2026 8:30 a.m./1:30 p.m.

PETITIONER IS HEREBY DEEMED A VEXATIOUS LITIGANT. PETITIONER IS PROHIBITED FROM MAKING ANY IN PROPRIA PERSONA FILING OF ANY NEW LITIGATION, PETITION, APPLICATION, OR MOTION IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING LEAVE OF THE PRESIDING JUSTICE WHERE THE LITIGATION IS PROPOSED TO BE FILED. DISOBEDIENCE OF THIS ORDER MAY BE PUNISHABLE BY CONTEMPT OF COURT.

RESPONDENT IS DIRECTED TO PREPARE THE FINDINGS AND ORDERS AFTER HEARING (FOAH), HOWEVER THIS ORDER IS EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY UPON THE COURT’S ADOPTION OF THE TENTATIVE RULING AND IS NOT CONDITIONED ON THE PREPARATION OF THE FOAH.

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.

1 “PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR STAY OF RELOCATION PENDING APPEAL” beginning on 2 page 1 of the drafted pleading: 3 1. Page 1, lines 19-21: Objection and move to strike as hearsay (EC 1 §1200), lack of 4 foundation (EC §403), and assumes facts not in evidence: “In light of law- 5 enforcement and CPS findings of no risk, neutral supervised-visitation reports 6

7 documenting safe, appropriate contact, and Respondent’s September 16, 2025

8 Utah conviction for child-abuse-related conduct against the parties’ son...”

9 X SUSTAINED _______ OVERRULED a. Objection ______ 10 2. Page 3, lines 6-8: Objection and move to strike as hearsay (EC §1200), lack of 11 foundation (EC §403), and assumes facts not in evidence: “Dr. Davis paused the 12 evaluation – in direct response to the unresolved conflict issues and the 13 problematic stipulation that Petitioner had been forced to sign under duress, nor 14

15 primarily due to “scope and ability-to-pay concerns.””

16 X SUSTAINED _______ OVERRULED a. Objection ______

17 3. Page 4, lines 2-6: Objection and move to strike as hearsay (EC §1200), assumes 18 facts not in evidence, lack of foundation (EC §403), and misstates the testimony 19 and record from trial, the entire paragraph starting with “At the December 15-17, 20 2025 trial...”. LAW OFFICES OF 21 REBEKAH A. FRYE X OVERRULED a. Objection ______ SUSTAINED _______ 8 N. SAN PEDRO 22 STREET, SUITE 230

SAN JOSE, CA 95110 23 4. Page 4, lines 13-15: Objection and move to strike as hearsay (EC §1200), assumes TEL: (408) 200-1540

FAX: (408) 275-9035 24 facts not in evidence, lack of foundation (EC §403), and misstates the testimony 25

26 1 Citations noted as “EC” are to the Evidence Code. 27 ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 28 Stanley vs. Cole 2 Objections and Motion to Strike Case No.: 24FL0221

1 and record from trial the statements starting with “These findings are contrary ...” 2 and ending with “... deemed unnecessary.” 3 X SUSTAINED _______ OVERRULED a. Objection ______ 4 5. Page 4, lines 25-28, and Page 5, lines 1-2: Objection and move to strike as hearsay 5 (EC §1200), lack of foundation (EC §403), and assumes facts not in evidence, the 6

7 entire paragraph starting with “At the same time...”

8 X a. Objection ______ SUSTAINED _______ OVERRULED

9 6. Page 5, lines 18-22: Objection and move to strike as hearsay (EC §1200), lack of 10 foundation (EC §403), and assumes facts not in evidence the entire paragraph 11 starting with “Criminal proceedings...” 12 X SUSTAINED _______ OVERRULED a. Objection ______ 13 7. Page 8, lines 5-7: Objection and move to strike as hearsay (EC §1200), lack of 14

15 foundation (EC §403), and assumes facts not in evidence the statements starting

16 with “Criminal proceedings” and ending with “Family Code sections 3020 and

17 3044”. 18 a. Objection ______ SUSTAINED _______ X OVERRULED 19 8. Page 8, lines 9-10: Objection and move to strike as hearsay (EC §1200), and lack 20 of foundation (EC §403) the statement starting with “On September 9, 2025”, and LAW OFFICES OF 21 REBEKAH A. FRYE ending with “ability-to-pay concerns”. 8 N. SAN PEDRO 22 STREET, SUITE 230 X SUSTAINED _______ OVERRULED a. Objection ______ SAN JOSE, CA 95110 23 TEL: (408) 200-1540

FAX: (408) 275-9035 24 9. Page 8, lines 15 -16: Objection and move to strike as hearsay (EC §1200), lack of 25 foundation (EC §403), and misstates the testimony at trial the statements starting 26

27 ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 28 Stanley vs. Cole 3 Objections and Motion to Strike Case No.: 24FL0221

1 with “At the December 15-17, 2025 trial”, and ending with “...ongoing 2 investigation”. 3 X OVERRULED a. Objection ______ SUSTAINED _______ 4 10. Page 8, lines 20-21: Objection and move to strike as hearsay (EC §1200) and lack 5 of foundation the statement (EC §403) “Deputy McLean’s email”. 6 X SUSTAINED _______ OVERRULED a. Objection ______ 7

8 11. Page 8, lines 22-23: Objection and move to strike as hearsay (EC §1200) and lack

9 of foundation (EC §403) the statement starting with “Recent supervised-visitation 10 reports” and ending in “...safety concerns.” 11 X SUSTAINED _______ OVERRULED a. Objection ______ 12 12. Exhibit A: Objection and move to strike as hearsay (EC §1200) and lacks 13 authentication (EC §§1400-1401). 14

15 a. Objection ______ X SUSTAINED _______ OVERRULED

16 13. Exhibit C: Objection to characterization of contents of email as improper narrative;

17 the email speaks for itself. 18 X a. Objection ______ SUSTAINED _______ OVERRULED 19 14. Exhibit G: Objection and move to strike as hearsay (EC §1200) and lacks 20 authentication (EC §§1400-1401). LAW OFFICES OF 21 REBEKAH A. FRYE X a. Objection ______ SUSTAINED _______ OVERRULED 8 N. SAN PEDRO 22 STREET, SUITE 230

SAN JOSE, CA 95110 23 15. Exhibit I: Objection and move to strike as hearsay (EC §1200). TEL: (408) 200-1540

FAX: (408) 275-9035 24 X OVERRULED a. Objection ______ SUSTAINED _______ 25

27 ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 28 Stanley vs. Cole 4 Objections and Motion to Strike Case No.: 24FL0221

1 16. Exhibit J: Objection and move to strike as improper narrative, assumes facts not in 2 evidence. 3 X a. Objection ______ SUSTAINED _______ OVERRULED 4 17. Exhibit L: Objection and move to strike as hearsay (EC §1200). 5 X a. Objection ______ SUSTAINED _______ OVERRULED 6

7 18. Exhibit M: Objection and move to strike as hearsay (EC §1200) and lacks

8 authentication (EC §§1400-1401).

9 X a. Objection ______ SUSTAINED _______ OVERRULED 10 19. Exhibit O: Objection and move to strike as improper narrative, assumes facts not 11 in evidence. 12 X OVERRULED a. Objection ______ SUSTAINED _______ 13 20. Exhibit P: Objection and move to strike as hearsay (EC §1200). 14 X a. Objection ______ SUSTAINED _______ OVERRULED 15

16 Evidence Code §1200 provides that hearsay is “evidence of a statement that was made

17 other than by a witness while testifying at the hearing and that is offered to prove the truth of the 18 matter stated” and is inadmissible. Though declaration or affidavit use is common in motion 19 practice, it is not a vehicle in which a party may seek to introduce evidence subject to objection as 20 a circumvention of the formal rules of evidence. 2 The court has found proper to sustain objections LAW OFFICES OF 21 REBEKAH A. FRYE to a party declaration that contains hearsay statements made by third-parties 3, and requires 8 N. SAN PEDRO 22 STREET, SUITE 230

SAN JOSE, CA 95110 23 consideration of properly raised objections to such statements prior to consideration of the TEL: (408) 200-1540

FAX: (408) 275-9035 24 evidence 4. 25 2 See Elkins v. Superior Court (2007) 41 Cal.4th 1337. 26 3 Huntsman-West Foundation v. Smith (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 1117. 4 Brown v. Goldstein (2019) 34 Cal.App.5th 418. 27 ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 28 Stanley vs. Cole 5 Objections and Motion to Strike Case No.: 24FL0221