Virginia C Chatham v. Reggio Hearn

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

5) 6 VIRGINIA C CHATHAM,) Case Number: FDI-23-798094) 7 Petitioner) Hearing Date: June 4, 2026) 8 VS.) Hearing Time: 9:00 AM) 9 REGGIO HEARN,) Department: 403) 10 Respondent) Presiding: BOBBY P. LUNA) 11) 12 REQUEST FOR ORDER RE: STAY TRIAL AND PRE-TRIAL MOTIONS PENDING APPEAL; OST 13 IN THE ALTERNATE 14 TENTATIVE RULING 15 Having read and considered the pleadings, declarations, and other evidence submitted in this matter, the 16 Court makes the following findings and orders: 17 A. Procedural History 18 1) The parties are Petitioner Virginia C.

Chatham and Respondent Reggio Hearn. 19 2) On 5/20/26, Petitioner filed an ex parte Request for Order seeking a stay on all pre-trial hearings 20 and trial (set for 7/6/26 – 7/14/26) pending appeal of the Court’s order disqualifying 21 Respondent’s counsel, which Respondent filed 5/11/26, or an order shortening time in the 22 alternative. Petitioner filed a supportive Memorandum of Points and Authorities (file dated 23 5/19/26). 24 3) Respondent filed a Responsive Declaration in opposition to Petitioner’s requests (file dated 25 5/19/26).

Respondent believes that staying all pre-trial hearings and trial is premature and should 26 be determined after the 6/25/26 hearing on Respondent’s motion for relief from the Court’s 27 disqualification order. Respondent further asserts that there are no grounds to continue pre-trial 28 discovery deadlines. Respondent’s position is that Petitioner’s original disqualification motion 29 was simply a tactic to delay trial.

1 4) On 5/20/26, Petitioner filed a Reply Declaration reiterating her position that a stay is necessary 2 because Respondent filed a Notice of Appeal on 5/11/26, which stays the Court’s order 3 disqualifying Respondent’s counsel. Petitioner opposes conducting pre-trial hearings and 4 discovery with an opposing counsel that the Court disqualified. Petitioner asserts that discovery 5 should be stayed and reopened once new trial dates are set as continuing discovery on business 6 valuations and income available for support at this time will result in outdated information for 7 trial. 8 5) On 5/20/26, the Court granted Petitioner’s request for an order shortening time and set the matter 9 for hearing on 6/4/26.

The Court stated no further briefing is necessary. 10 6) On 6/1/26, Respondent filed a Responsive Declaration reiterating his position that staying all pre- 11 trial hearings and trial is premature and should be determined after the 6/25/26 hearing on 12 Respondent’s motion for relief from the Court’s disqualification order. Respondent reasserts that 13 there is no good cause to continue or extend discovery, of which the cutoff date is 6/8/26. 14 Respondent states that if the disqualification order is upheld on 6/25/26, Respondent will remain 15 ready to proceed to trial with new counsel. 16 B.