Warta, Lisa v. Warta, Michael
Status Conference
Motion type
Parties
Ruling
STATUS CONFERENCE TENTATIVE DECISION 09/04/2026, 9:00 a.m. Department 3
Case No. FL12-009505 Petitioner: Warta, Lisa Attorney: Self-Represented Respondent: Warta, Michael 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. Corrected FL-141 Dec. re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure from Petitioner. Current FL-141 does not have complete information for the date of delivery of the documents.
4. Judgment pack for Uncontested with Agreement, no minor(s) When the case has been settled, the Court will also need the following forms. i. FL-130 Appearance, Stipulations, & Waivers signed by both. ii. Either FL-141 Dec. re: Service of Declaration of Disclosure showing service of Final Declaration of Disclosure from each party OR FL- 144 Stipulation & Waiver of Final Declaration of Disclosure signed by both parties. The Court notes that these financial disclosures are for the protection of the parties.
While the Court does not encourage a waiver of service of a Final Declaration of Disclosure, the parties may waive the Final Declaration of Disclosure. Preliminary Disclosure cannot be waived. iii. FL-170 Dec. for Default or Uncontested Disso signed by one party. iv. FL-180 Judgment (Family Law) with attached fully signed Marital Settlement Agreement, any other applicable agreement forms. v. FL-190 Notice of Entry of Judgment (Family Law) with a stamped envelope addressed to each party.
5. The standard terms listed at the top of the tentative decision posting are incorporated by reference. __________________________________________________________________
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?”