Anthony Metcalf Schwartz v. Grace Maria Schwartz
TEMPORARY EMERGENCY ORDER, SPOUSAL OR PARTNER SUPPORT, ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS, PROPERTY CONTROL, REMOVE THE PETITIONER FROM THE APARTMENT, CHARACTERIZE COMM
Motion type
Causes of action
Parties
Ruling
1 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 2 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 3 UNIFIED FAMILY COURT 4
5) 6 ANTHONY METCALF SCHWARTZ,) Case Number: FDI-18-790180) 7 Petitioner) Hearing Date: August 25, 2026) 8 VS.) Hearing Time: 9:00 AM) 9 GRACE MARIA SCHWARTZ,) Department: 403) 10 Respondent) Presiding: BOBBY P. LUNA) 11) 12 REQUEST FOR ORDER: TEMPORARY EMERGENCY ORDER, SPOUSAL OR PARTNER 13 SUPPORT, ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS, PROPERTY CONTROL, REMOVE THE PETITIONER 14 FROM THE APARTMENT, CHARACTERIZE COMM 15 TENTATIVE RULING 16 The parties are ordered to appear. The parties may appear in person in Dept. 403 or remotely by 17 Zoom video.
If a party chooses to appear by video, that party must abide by the Notice and 18 Instructions for Remote Appearances in San Francisco Family Court set forth above. 19 A. Procedural History 20 1) The parties are Petitioner Anthony Metcalf Schwartz and Respondent Grace Maria Schwartz. 21 2) On 7/9/26, Respondent filed an ex parte Request for Order seeking enforcement of spousal 22 support, exclusive use and control of the community leasehold and related relief, and attorney’s 23 fees and costs. 24 3) On 7/9/26, the Court denied Respondent’s request for emergency relief and set the matter for 25 hearing on 8/18/26.
The Court ordered Respondent to personally serve Petitioner with all 26 documents filed with the Request for Order (see FL-300). 27 4) There is no Proof of Service on file indicating Petitioner was personally served with 28 Respondent’s 7/9/25 Request for Order. 29 5) Petitioner did not file a Responsive Declaration.
1 6) On 8/13/26, Respondent filed a Non-Service Report indicating four unsuccessful attempts at 2 service. 3 7) At the prior 8/18/26 hearing, counsel for Respondent appeared and informed the Court that he 4 filed a request for alternative service on 8/13/26, which was still pending. The Court therefore 5 continued the matter to 8/25/26 as it had not yet received the 8/13/26 filing. 6 B. Findings and Order 7 1) The parties are ordered to appear. 8
12
16
20
24
28
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?”