DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
26FL0386·eldorado·Civil·Property control
Hearing todayDropped from calendar due to lack of proper service

Arian Andrea Behziz v. Christopher Ryan Davis

Request for Order (RFO) seeking property control orders

Hearing date
Aug 27, 2026
Department
5
Judge
Prevailing
N/A
Appearance
Not required

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffArian Andrea Behziz
DefendantChristopher Ryan Davis

Ruling

LAW & MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS DEPARTMENT 5 August 27, 2026 8:30 AM/1:30 PM

1. ARIAN ANDREA BEHZIZ V. CHRISTOPHER RYAN DAVIS 26FL0386

On May 29, 2026, Petitioner filed a Request for Order (RFO) seeking property control orders. The RFO was personally served on June 24, 2026, however Petitioner failed to serve the FL-320 and the required Notice of Tentative Ruling.

Respondent has not filed a Responsive Declaration to Request for Order.

This matter is dropped from calendar due to the lack of proper service.

TENTATIVE RULING #1: THIS MATTER IS DROPPED FROM CALENDAR DUE TO LACK OF PROPER SERVICE.

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.

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