Petitioner's Request for Order re Compel Disclosure, etc.
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: May 27, 2026
The following are the tentative ruling cases calendared before Judge Alan Cassidy in Department #11:
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
FL-21-000003 - GARDEA VS GARDEA
Third-Party's Motion re Joinder, etc.-- HEARING REQUIRED. This is a Petition for Custody and Support involving three minor children in which the parties are married but there is no dissolution action pending. Pursuant to the Findings and Order After Hearing of February 22, 2021, Petitioner was accorded sole legal and physical custody of the minor children and that order has not been modified or altered since. Accordingly, given Petitioner's objection to court-ordered grandparent visitation, the Court may not order joinder or consider court-ordered grandparent visitation over Petitioner's objection unless and until Third-Party establishes by clear and convincing evidence that doing so is in the minor children's best interests. (Fam.
Code Sec. 3104(a)(2); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.24(e)(1)(B); Local Rules, rule 7.08(B)(2); In re Marriage of Harris (2004) 34 Cal.4th 210, 222; Rich v. Thatcher (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1176, 1181 [clear and convincing evidence burden essential to constitutionality of statutory grandparent visitation over fit custodial parents' objections]; Ian J. v. Peter M. (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 189, 205-209 [trial court abused discretion in failing to apply clear and convincing evidence standard and to consider "the breadth of circumstances a parent may reasonably consider in deciding to limit or prevent contact with a grandparent"].)
That said, if Petitioner appears and is willing to entertain some visitation with Third-Party, then the Court may, in its discretion, direct the parties to mediation and, if an agreement is reached, then joinder may be granted.
FL-23-000182 - WILLIAMSON VS WILLIAMSON
Petitioner's Request for Order re Compel Disclosure, etc.-- HEARING REQUIRED. Based on Respondent's Responsive Declaration, it appears the subject pension plan may no longer exist and Respondent proposed an offer to compensate Petitioner for the loss of the interest awarded to her in the parties' Judgment. Accordingly, the parties are directed to meet and confer on Respondent's offer in good faith and the Court will entertain any stipulations or, absent agreement, hear argument and testimony about the Court's ruling.
The following are the tentative ruling cases calendared before Judge J. Richard Distaso in Department #13:
THERE ARE NO TENTATIVES.
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:
FL-22-001443 - HAIDAR VS HAIDAR
Petitioner's Request for Order re Attorney's Fees, etc.-- HEARING REQUIRED. There is no proof of service on file and Respondent has not filed a Responsive Declaration. (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 5.94(b).) While the Court notes there is an attached document purporting to be an "audit trail" from "Dropbox Sign," this does not alleviate Petitioner from complying with the proof of service requirement under the Rules of Court and it is unclear whether the fees and costs request is need-based or conduct-based.
If the former, then it is not eligible for tentative ruling and a hearing is required. If the latter, then the statutory basis for the request is not cited and the standards and findings required for a conduct-based award differ depending on the governing law. For instance, fees and costs awarded in the nature of a sanction pursuant to Family Code section 271 require the Court to make findings that the amount not impose "an unreasonable financial burden" on the sanctioned party and Respondent does not have a current Income and Expense Declaration on file.
Given the rescheduled and pending Informal Discovery Conference, and the fact that an Order Shortening Time was not requested, absent appearance and waiver of any notice or service objections, the Court is inclined to deny the request without prejudice or to continue the hearing and reserve jurisdiction.