Joy Ortega v. Oscar Ernesto Lopez

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

5) 6 JOY ORTEGA,) Case Number: FDI-23-798315) 7 Petitioner) Hearing Date: August 27, 2026) 8 VS.) Hearing Time: 9:00 AM) 9 OSCAR ERNESTO LOPEZ,) Department: 404) 10 Respondent) Presiding: AI MORI) 11) 12 REQUEST FOR ORDER: SET ASIDE ENTRY OF DEFAULT AND ALLOW RESPONDENT TO 13 FILE A RESPONSE 14 TENTATIVE RULING 15 As there is no indication in the record that Mother was served with a copy of the Tentative 16 Ruling Instructions, as required by San Francisco Local Rule 11.7(D)(3)(a), the parties are ordered 17 to appear in-person or by Zoom video at 9:00 AM in Dept. 404 on 8/27/2026. If a party chooses to 18 appear by Zoom, that party must abide by the Notice and Instructions for Remote Appearance in 19 San Francisco Family Court set forth above. 20 At the hearing, absent good cause shown, the Court intends to adopt the following findings 21 and orders. 22

23 A. Procedural History 24 1) Petitioner Joy Ortega (Mother) and Respondent Oscar Ernesto Lopez (Father) married on 25 4/2/2017. Mother contends the parties separated on 3/1/2019, for a marriage of 1 year and 11 26 months. Father contends the parties separated in November 2018, for a marriage of 1 year and 4 27 months. The parties have one minor child, De’Angelo (DOB: 5/16/2014, age 12). 28 2) On 7/6/2023, Father filed a Petition for Dissolution in Alameda County. 29 3) On 7/10/2023, Mother filed a Petition for Dissolution in San Francisco County.

1 4) On 4/30/2024, Alameda County granted Mother’s request to transfer venue of the parties’ 2 dissolution action to San Francisco County. 3 5) On 7/11/2024, the Alameda County case file was transferred to San Francisco County. 4 6) On 7/12/2024, the Court entered Father’s default, upon Mother’s request. 5 7) On 11/5/2024, Mother submitted a proposed True Default Judgment, which was rejected by a 6 clerk on 12/5/2024 due to various errors. 7 8) Between 2023 – 2025, both parties appeared in this case for multiple hearings on multiple issues. 8 The most recent order was filed on 11/24/2025 following a hearing which occurred on 11/6/2025

9 before Judge Wiley. The order notes that both parties appeared for the hearing via Zoom. The

10 order maintains prior sole legal and sole physical custody of the minor child with Mother. 11 9) On 5/13/2026, Mother again submitted a proposed True Default Judgment for the Court’s review. 12 It was rejected by a clerk on 6/3/2026 due to various errors. 13 10) On 7/7/2026, Mother again submitted a proposed True Default Judgment for the Court’s review. 14 It was again rejected by a clerk on 7/16/2026 due to various errors.

15 11) Now on for hearing is Father’s Request for Order filed 7/2/2026 asking the Court to set aside 16 Father’s default and allow Father to file a Response to the Petition in this case. Father states, “At 17 the time this matter was proceeding, Oscar was detained by immigration and had difficulty 18 preparing and filing a Response. Oscar has since been deported and remains outside of the United

19 States, which has made it more difficult for him to address the default and move the case forward

20 without court intervention.” 21 12) Per the Proof of Service filed 7/7/2026, Father’s Request for Order was mailed to the address the 22 Court has on file for Mother on 7/2/2026. 23 13) Mother did not file a Responsive Declaration. 24 B. Findings and Order

25 1) The Court finds good cause to grant Father’s request to set aside his default. Father’s default is 26 hereby vacated. 27 2) Father may file a Response to the Petition no later than 9/30/2026. 28 3) The Court will prepare the Findings and Order After Hearing. 29