DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
PFL20210050·eldorado·Civil·Visitation modification
Hearing todayParties ordered to appear for hearing to select settlement conference and trial dates

Coral Ericson v. Wilfred Brunet

Request for Order modification of visitation

Hearing date
Aug 27, 2026
Department
5
Judge
Prevailing
N/A

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffCoral Ericson
DefendantWilfred Brunet

Ruling

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

11. CORAL ERICSON V. WILFRED BRUNET PFL20210050

Petitioner filed a Request for Order (RFO) on June 10, 2026, seeking modification of visitation orders as well as visitation frequency. Respondent was mail served on June 26, 2026.

Respondent filed a Responsive Declaration on July 8, 2026. It was served on July 16, 2026.

Respondent filed an RFO on July 17, 2026, along with an Order Shortening Time (OST). The court granted the OST and directed Respondent to serve Petitioner on or before August 5, 2026. Petitioner was personally served on August 5, 2026.

Petitioner filed a Responsive declaration on August 5, 2026. Respondent was mail served on August 13, 2026.

Respondent filed additional declarations on August 4th and August 5th. Petitioner was served on August 5, 2026.

Respondent filed additional declarations on August 14th and 19th. Petitioner was served on August 19th.

Parties are ordered to appear for the hearing to select Mandatory Settlement Conference (MSC) and trial dates.

TENTATIVE RULING #11: PARTIES ARE ORDERED TO APPEAR FOR THE HEARING TO SELECT MANDATORY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE (MSC) AND TRIAL DATES.

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