Respondent's Request for Order re Set Aside
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: 06/04/2026
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-22-002303 - COOK VS COOK Petitioner's Request for Order re Change Venue-- HEARING REQUIRED. Proof of service is on file, including as to the Court's Minute Order rescheduling the hearing, and no Responsive Declaration has been filed by Respondent. This is a dissolution case and the Court therefore has discretionary authority to change venue when both parties have moved from the forum county and doing so will promote the convenience of the parties and the ends of justice. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 397.5) Based on Petitioner's declaration, it appears that neither party resides in Stanislaus County, that the minor children reside with Petitioner in Amador County, and that Respondent's mailing address is in San Joaquin County. Accordingly, the Court is inclined to grant the change of venue but wishes to give Respondent the opportunity to appear and be heard. (Fam. Code, Sec. 217.)
The following are the tentative ruling cases calendared before Judge J. Richard Distaso in Department #13:
FL-26-000052 - ANDERSON VS ANDERSON Respondent's Request for Order re Set Aside-- HEARING REQUIRED. Proof of service is on file and Petitioner has filed a Responsive Declaration opposing the request. Respondent's motion was filed within six months of the entry of default, on March 20, 2026, and no judgment has been entered. The Court has discretion to set aside the entry of default on grounds of mistake, surprise, inadvertence or excusable neglect. It is not clear from Respondent's declaration which ground(s) she asserts is the basis for relief and Petitioner alleges there are none and that this is a case of "settlor's remorse" after a Marital Settlement Agreement was negotiated between them.
The Court cannot resolve this factual dispute without a hearing. That said, the policy of the law favors set aside and Petitioner has not advanced any harm, cost or prejudice that would follow from the Court granting relief.
The following are the tentative ruling cases calendared before Judge Sarah Birmingham in Department #14:
FL-24-002729 - GUTIERREZ VS MACIAS Respondent's Request for Order re Preventing Sale, etc.-- HEARING REQUIRED. Temporary orders were granted and proof of personal service is on file for Petitioner but no Responsive Declaration or other opposition has been filed. Regarding an order to prevent the listing and sale of the subject property, the Automatic Temporary Restraining Orders (ATRO's) are in effect and already constitute an order prohibiting either party from liquidating any community property without prior stipulation or court order. That said, if Respondent's declaration is accurate and there is evidence before the Court at the hearing of a pending listing and/or sale, the Court has the power to issue injunctive relief to enjoin such a violation of the ATRO's.
Respondent's remaining request is for authorization to file and/or record a Notice of Pending Action (aka Lis Pendens). This is not an act that the Court has legal authority to order or to issue on its own motion but is rather a pleading that a party with an ownership interest of disputed title to real property chooses whether to file or not. The filing and/or recording of a Lis Pendens is not per se a violation of the ATRO's. Respondent may wish to seek legal advice at her own expense but is also welcome to contact the Court's Self-Help Center for free assistance with legal forms and procedures that do not entail legal advice.
The following are the tentative ruling cases calendared before Judge Maria Elena Ramos-Ratliff in Department #25:
THERE ARE NO TENTATIVES.