DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
FPT-25-378795·sf·FamilyLaw·Venue Transfer
Hearing todayNo additional orders

Jasmine Shavon Williams v. Adrien Eugene Godbold

Review Hearing: Compliance with Orders Issued at 6/02/26 Hearing

Hearing date
Sep 1, 2026
Department
404
Judge
Prevailing
N/A

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PetitionerJasmine Shavon Williams
RespondentAdrien Eugene Godbold

Ruling

1 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 2 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 3 UNIFIED FAMILY COURT 4

5) 6 JASMINE SHAVON WILLIAMS,) Case Number: FPT-25-378795) 7 Petitioner) Hearing Date: September 1, 2026) 8 VS.) Hearing Time: 9:00 AM) 9 ADRIEN EUGENE GODBOLD,) Department: 404) 10 Respondent) Presiding: AI MORI) 11) 12 REVIEW HEARING: COMPLIANCE WITH ORDERS ISSUED AT 6/02/26 HEARING 13 TENTATIVE RULING 14 Having read and considered the pleadings, declarations, and other evidence submitted in this matter, the

15 Court makes the following findings and orders:

16 1) The parties in this matter are Petitioner Jasmine Williams (Mother) and Respondent Adrien Godbold

17 (Father). The parties have one minor child, Brince (DOB: 4/16/2021, age 5).

18 2) At the prior 6/2/2026 hearing, both parties appeared. The Court granted Father’s request to transfer

19 venue of this case to Alameda County.

20 3) On 8/12/2026, the Court transmitted to the Alameda County Superior Court copies of all documents

21 filed in this case.

22 4) The Court finds that the transfer of this case to Alameda County has been effectuated. The Court will

23 make no additional orders in this matter.

24 5) The Court will prepare the Findings and Order After Hearing.

28

29

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