PRASAD VS PRASAD

Stanislaus County - FamilyLaw - https://www.stanislaus.courts.ca.gov/online-services/tentative-rulings/family-law-t entative-rulings Family Law Tentative Rulings

The family court issues tentative ruling announcements on the court day prior to the scheduled hearing for specific types of motions. Tentative rulings are only provided on the Internet and posted in the clerk's office lobby. Internet postings occur at 3:30 p.m. daily. Parties are not required to give notice of intent to appear to preserve the right to a hearing. The tentative ruling will not become final until the hearing. (Stan. Cnty. Local Rules, rule 7.05.1)

However, as a courtesy to the Court, and other parties or counsel with matters on calendar, notice of intended appearance or non-appearance is encouraged and may be sent by e-mail to the following address: familylaw.tentatives@stanct.org between the hours of 1:30 p.m. and 4:00 p.m. If you do not receive a confirmation e-mail from the clerk, you may call to speak directly with a Calendar Clerk at 209-530-3107.

Any party filing pleadings or documents on a tentative ruling matter within five (5) days of the hearing should provide a courtesy copy to the Courtroom Clerk and the Court's Family Law Research Attorney by placing a copy in the drop box slot on the door of Room 223, Second Floor of the main Courthouse. Failure to do so may prevent the Court from consideration of such, may result in a continuance, and/or may be considered in the award of conduct-based fees and costs. (Stan. Cnty. Local Rules, rule 7.05.1(B).)

All parties and counsel are required to meet and confer in a good faith effort to resolve the dispute on any request, motion or hearing, with the exception of those involving domestic violence, and to exchange any documents upon which reliance will be made at the hearing. (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 5.98; Stan. Cnty. Local Rules, rule 7.05.1(C).) Failure to do so may result in a continuance and may be considered in the award of conduct-based fees and costs, or both. If sufficient information regarding an adequate pre-hearing meet and confer effort is not provided in the moving and opposing papers, in the Court's discretion, the matter may be placed at the end of the calendar and not called until the parties or counsel advise the Court that they have complied with their obligations and/or resolved the matter s own motion, the Court orders Respondent to comply within thirty (30) days of this ruling and admonishes Respondent that the failure to do so may result in the striking of the Response and entry of Respondent's default.

Date: 05/26/2026

The following are the tentative ruling cases calendared before Judge Alan Cassidy in Department #11: THERE ARE NO TENTATIVES.

The following are the tentative ruling cases calendared before Judge J. Richard Distaso in Department #13:

FL-22-002702 - PRASAD VS PRASAD Petitioner's Request for Order re Attorney's Fees and Costs, etc.-- HEARING REQUIRED. Petitioner requests both need-based attorney's fees and conduct-based attorney's fees pursuant to Family Code section 271. The need-based request is not eligible for tentative ruling and requires a hearing. While proof of service is on file, and the Court granted an Order Shortening Time, Respondent is represented but has not filed a Responsive Declaration and there does not appear to be a current Income and Expense Declaration (I&E) on file. Unless there have been no changes to Respondent's financial circumstances since the last filing, Respondent is directed to complete and sign an I&E, and to provide copies to the Court and Petitioner's counsel at the hearing, to be served and filed thereafter.

Regarding sanctions pursuant to section 271, without current financial circumstances regarding Respondent, the Court is unable to make the required finding as to whether the amount requested for fees and costs would constitute an "unreasonable financial burden." (Fam. Code, Sec. 271(a).) Moreover, in this circumstance, given the length of this litigation and the present trial date, the Court will exercise discretion to reserve jurisdiction over conduct-based sanctions--as to both parties and their respective attorneys--so that this decision may be made in the context of the litigation as a whole and in respect to the nature and extent of each party's efforts to cooperate in good faith, compliance with disclosure and discovery duties, and the reasonableness of settlement offers and responses thereto. (See, Marriage of Davenport (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 1507, 1515; Marriage of Freeman (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 1, 6 [section 271 "contemplates that sanctions may be assessed at the end of the lawsuit, when the extent and severity of the party's bad conduct can be judged"]; Hogoboom & King, Cal.

Prac. Guide Family L. (TRG 2026) Ch. 14-A, Sec. 14:265a [noting and discussing the split of authority on this point].)

That said, the Court will not hesitate to award section 271 sanctions, including sua sponte with notice and opportunity to be heard, if necessary to deter or rectify immediate misconduct but in this long-running and relatively complex dissolution case, the immediacy of a 271 award is not at issue, particularly since Petitioner has requested need-based attorney's fees and costs. A 271 award is made irrespective of financial need and the other party's ability to pay. (Marriage of Tharp (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 1295, 1316-1317.)

FL-22-001320 - RIOS VS RIOS Petitioner's Request for Order re Spousal Support, etc.-- DENIED, without prejudice. The Court granted an Order Shortening Time and there is no proof of service on file. Petitioner must appear and/or seek an order to reschedule the hearing and show both due diligence in service and good cause or the matter will be dropped for non-service. (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 5.94(b).)

FL-24-002926 - KREGNESS VS KREGNESS Petitioner's Request for Order re "Reopen Case"-- HEARING REQUIRED. There is no law authorizing a "motion to reopen." This dissolution case was not "closed" subject to being "reopened." Rather, Petitioner failed to appear and failed to prosecute this case as required by law. Accordingly, the Court involuntarily dismissed the case on October 17, 2025. A dismissal order is equivalent to a judgment that terminates the proceedings and extinguishes the Court's jurisdiction other than for a timely filed and served motion to set aside. (Lakkees v. Superior Court (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 531, 540 n. 5; Gogri v. Jack In The Box Inc. (2008) 166 CA4th 255, 261; Hogoboom & King, Cal. Prac. Guide Family L. (TRG 2026) Ch. 15-A, Sec. 15:4.)

That said, Petitioner filed the present order request and has proof of personal service on file, both within the six (6) month time limit of Code of Civil Procedure section 473(b), that provides the Court with authority to set aside a dismissal on grounds of mistake, surprise, inadvertence and excusable neglect. Based on Petitioner's declaration, it appears these grounds may exist. But Petitioner must appear and, if Respondent appears, then the Court will entertain the parties' testimony and will exercise discretion pursuant to section 473(b) in granting or denying the request. Otherwise, the matter will be denied and if Petitioner wishes to proceed with divorce, she will have to file a new case.

FL-26-000085 - DIAZ VS ESCOBAR Petitioner's Request for Order re Property Control, etc.-- HEARING REQUIRED. The Court granted temporary orders, shortened time for hearing, and authorized service by publication/posting with a requirement for electronic notice via social media. Proof of Service of Respondent is on file and no Responsive Declaration or other opposition has been filed. Accordingly, the Court is inclined to grant the requested orders but Petitioner and her counsel shall appear in the event that Respondent appears, since both parties have the right to offer their testimony at any hearing on an order request. (Fam. Code, Sec. 217.) The ATRO's will apply once proof of service of Summons and Petition is effectuated.

The following are the tentative ruling cases calendared before Judge Sarah Birmingham in Department #14: THERE ARE NO TENTATIVES.

The following are the tentative ruling cases calendared before Judge Maria Elena Ramos-Ratliff in Department #25: THERE ARE NO TENTATIVES.