DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
FDI-18-790419·sf·FamilyLaw·Support Modification
Hearing 17 days agoHearing vacated

Michael Todd Scott v. Sylvia Eugenia Cediel

Other Review Hearing

Hearing date
Aug 4, 2026
Department
404
Judge
Prevailing
N/A
Appearance
Not required

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Causes of action

Parties

PetitionerMichael Todd Scott
RespondentSylvia Eugenia Cediel

Ruling

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

5) 6 MICHAEL TODD SCOTT,) Case Number: FDI-18-790419) 7 Petitioner) Hearing Date: August 4, 2026) 8 VS.) Hearing Time: 9:00 AM) 9 SYLVIA EUGENIA CEDIEL,) Department: 404) 10 Respondent) Presiding: AI MORI) 11) 12 OTHER REVIEW HEARING 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 1) This matter is on for hearing on Mother’s Request for Order filed 12/24/2025 asking the Court to 17 modify the current child and spousal support orders (set forth in the Stipulated Judgment filed 18 11/3/2021). 19 2) At the prior 5/21/2026 hearing, the parties and their attorneys appeared and stated that they had 20 reached an agreement.

The Court set the matter for a review hearing on 8/4/2026 for any remaining 21 issues not resolved by a Stipulation and Order. 22 3) On 7/30/2026, the parties submitted a fully executed proposed Stipulation and Order Re: Child 23 Support. The Stipulation and Order does not include any mention of any remaining outstanding issues 24 from Mother’s Request for Order filed 12/24/2025. 25 4) Neither party filed any declarations since the prior 5/21/2026 hearing. 26 5) It does not appear any issues remain outstanding from Mother’s Request for Order filed 12/24/2025. 27 The 8/4/2026 hearing is hereby vacated. 28 6) The Court will prepare the Findings and Order After Hearing. 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