ROSAS VS OCHOA

697154 - ROSAS VS OCHOA Respondent's Request for Order re Change Venue-- HEARING REQUIRED. Both parties are represented. Respondent does not offer authority and the only factual allegation is that neither party currently resides in Stanislaus County. Petitioner also offers no applicable authority but accurately restates the current circumstances regarding child custody and then--inappropriately--includes argument regarding the "interests of justice and judicial economy," submitting that the burden of demonstrating forum non conveniens is high.

This is a Petition to Establish Parental Relations and has been in litigation, in one form or another, since 2015. As such, the original propriety of venue has been established and does not "expire" or become improper merely by the actions of the parties in choosing where to reside. In a dissolution case, when both parties have moved from the forum county, then the Court has discretion to change party, in part, based on the convenience of the parties. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 397.5.) But that is not this case.

Rather, a discretionary motion to change venue is governed by Code of Civil Procedure section 397 subdivision (c) and requires an affidavit by the moving party establishing that the requested venue change will promote the convenience of witnesses and the ends of justice. Respondent offers nothing on either ground and Petitioner alleges the contrary. That said, the doctrine of forum non conveniens has nothing to do with venue, which is the proper county of the Superior Court in which an action may be filed and prosecuted, and instead concerns the forum state in which an action is pending.

The following are the tentative ruling cases calendared before Judge J. Richard Distaso in Department #13: THERE ARE NO TENTATIVES.

The following are the tentative ruling cases calendared before Judge Sarah Birmingham in Department #14: FL-23-003137 - CERVANTES VS CERVANTES Petitioner's Request for Order re Enforce Judgment, etc.-- HEARING REQUIRED. Respondent filed a Responsive Declaration and alleges that, due to an adverse change in financial circumstances, he lacks the ability to comply with the terms of the parties' final judgment that Petitioner seeks to enforce. Neither party has filed and served a current Income and Expense Declaration as required when the matter concerns property, fees or support. (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 5.92.)

That said, when it comes to enforcement of judgment, the Court has no authority to modify or rewrite the terms of the judgment; the Court's only role, absent a motion to set aside, is to enforce the judgment "as-is." (Marriage of Thorne & Raccina (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 492, 499; see, Hogoboom & King, Cal. Prac. Guide Family L. (TRG 2026) Ch. 17-E, Sec. 17:340 et seq. [" after the time for appeal has run, the parties cannot relitigate the division of property disposed of by a final judgment. [Marriage of Brown (1976) 15 C3d 838, 851, 126 CR 633, 641, fn. 3; see Marriage of Stier (1986) 178 CA3d 42, 53-54, 223 CR 599, 606-608--no jurisdiction to act on request to 'modify' 9-year-old final judgment re amount owing pursuant to CP division of military retirement pay]," emphasis added.)

Respondent is represented by counsel but no authority to the contrary has been offered and as Respondent's declaration offers no other rebuttal or opposition to the Petitioner's order request, absent testimony or evidence establishing good cause to the contrary, the Court is inclined to grant the motion.

The following are the tentative ruling cases calendared before Judge Maria Elena Ramos-Ratliff in Department #25: THERE ARE NO TENTATIVES.