Israel Mendoza v. Eneida Mendoza
Request for Order for child custody; Request for Order regarding co-parenting therapist and sanctions
Motion type
Parties
Ruling
LAW & MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS DEPARTMENT 5 August 27, 2026 8:30 AM/1:30 PM
6. ISRAEL MENDOZA V. ENEIDA MENDOZA PFL20210121
On June 4, 2026, Respondent filed a Request for Order (RFO) seeking child custody orders. There is no Proof of Service for this document therefore the RFO is dropped from calendar.
On June 30, 2026, Petitioner filed an RFO seeking orders regarding a co-parenting therapist and sanctions. All required documents were served by mail on July 3rd, however this is a post-judgment request and therefore service was required to comply with Family Code § 215. This matter is dropped from calendar due to lack of proper service.
TENTATIVE RULING #6: 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
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?”