DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
FL0002974·nevada·Civil·Family Law
Hearing in 6 daysCase dropped from further Status Conference review

Spooner, Mark v. Landberg, Catherine

Status Conference

Hearing date
Sep 4, 2026
Department
3
Judge
Prevailing
N/A

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PetitionerSpooner, Mark
RespondentLandberg, Catherine

Ruling

STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION 09/04/2026, 9:00 a.m. Department 3

Case No. FL0002974 Petitioner: Spooner, Mark Attorney: Self-Represented Respondent: Landberg, Catherine Attorney: Self-Represented

1. This is the third status conference. Personal appearance is required. No continuance is contemplated by the Court at this time. The case will be dropped from further Status Conference review.

2. The Court notes that the following are still required: a. FL-110 Summons on Amended Petition b. Corrected FL-115 Proof of Service of Summons. This needs to be on FL- 115 form and include Amended Petition, Summons on Amended Petition and a blank Response form. If the original server is not available to correct this, the documents will need to be re-served. When the Court has the correct Proof of Service, the Court requires one of the following: i. FL-120 Response and FL-141 Dec. re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Respondent, OR ii.

FL-165 Request to Enter Default from Petitioner more than thirty days after Petition package has been served. Petitioner must provide a stamped envelope addressed to Respondent. If there is an agreement, Respondent must file FL-141 Dec. re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure. OR iii. Agreement that Respondent has additional time to file Response. Parties may use FL14 Family Law Stipulation (Nevada County) if signed by both parties or MC-030 Declaration if only signed by Petitioner. c. FL-141 Dec. re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner.

3. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference. __________________________________________________________________

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