DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
FDI-24-799458·sf·FamilyLaw·Spousal Support
Hearing 4 months agoDISMISSED without prejudice

Mathew Leigh Ragonese v. William Joseph Brown

REQUEST FOR ORDER: SPOUSAL OR PARTNER SUPPORT

Hearing date
May 7, 2026
Department
403
Prevailing
Respondent

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffMathew Leigh Ragonese
RespondentWilliam Joseph Brown

Ruling

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

5) 6 MATHEW LEIGH RAGONESE,) Case Number: FDI-24-799458) 7 Petitioner) Hearing Date: May 7, 2026) 8 VS.) Hearing Time: 9:00 AM) 9 WILLIAM JOSEPH BROWN,) Department: 403) 10 Respondent) Presiding: BOBBY P. LUNA) 11) 12 REQUEST FOR ORDER: SPOUSAL OR PARTNER SUPPORT 13 TENTATIVE RULING 14 Having read and considered the pleadings, declarations, and other evidence submitted in this matter, the 15 Court makes the following findings and orders: 16 A. Procedural History 17 1) The parties are Petitioner Matthew Leigh Ragonese and Respondent William Joseph Brown. 18 2) On 2/23/26, Petitioner filed a Request for Order on which the box for “Spousal or Partner 19 Support” is checked in the header of form FL-300 (Request for Order); however, section 4 20 “Spousal or Domestic Partner Support” is not completed.

Petitioner did not include any facts to 21 support the orders requested. 22 3) Petitioner did not file an Income and Expense Declaration. 23 4) There is no Proof of Service of file evidencing Petitioner’s Request for Order was served on 24 Respondent as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 1005(b). 25 5) Respondent did not file a Responsive Declaration. 26 B. Findings and Order 27 1) The Court finds good cause to VACATE the 5/7/26 hearing on Petitioner’s Request for Order 28 filed 2/23/26 for the following reasons: (a) Petitioner’s Request for Order lacks sufficient facts in 29 support of a spousal support order; (b) Petitioner failed to file an Income and Expense

1 Declaration, which is a mandatory form; and (c) proper service of Petitioner’s Request for Order 2 was not effectuated pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1005(b). 3 2) Petitioner’s Request for Order is therefore DISMISSED without prejudice (i.e., Petitioner may 4 refile). 5 3) Should Petitioner wish to refile, Petitioner is strongly encouraged to seek assistance from the 6 ACCESS Center. Information for contacting the ACCESS Center can be found here: 7 https://sf.courts.ca.gov/access-legal-self-help-center. 8 4) The Court will prepare the Findings and Order After Hearing. 9

13

17

21

25

29

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

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?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share