Mercedes Davis v. Shatiz Melonson
RFO for move-away authorization
Motion type
Causes of action
Parties
Ruling
LAW & MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS DEPARTMENT 5 September 3, 2026 8:30 a.m./1:30 p.m.
11. MERCEDES DAVIS V. SHATIZ MELONSON 24FL0236
Petitioner filed a Request for Order (RFO) on June 15, 2026, requesting authorization for a move away. The parties were referred to Child Custody Recommending Counseling (CCRC) with an appointment on July 24, 2026, and a review hearing on September 3, 2026. Upon review of the court file, there is no Proof of Service showing Respondent was properly served.
Neither party appeared at the CCRC appointment on July 24th.
Respondent has not filed a Responsive Declaration.
The court drops the matter from calendar due to the lack of proper service as well as the failure to appear at CCRC.
TENTATIVE RULING #11: THE COURT DROPS THE MATTER FROM CALENDAR DUE TO THE LACK OF PROPER SERVICE AS WELL AS THE FAILURE TO APPEAR AT CCRC.
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?”