Motion to compel PDD and sanctions
Browse all Motion to Compel Further Responses rulings statewide →
LAW & MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS DEPARTMENT 5 June 11, 2026 8:30 AM/1:30 PM
2. JARROD ANDREASEN V. BRANDI ANDREASEN 25FL0567
On March 10, 2026, Petitioner filed a Request for Order (RFO) seeking to compel Respondent’s Preliminary Declaration of Disclosure (PDD) and sanctions. All required documents were served on March 12th.
Respondent filed and served her Responsive Declaration to Request for Order, her Income and Expense Declaration, and her Declaration Regarding Service of Declaration of Disclosure on May 19th.
Petitioner seeks an order compelling Respondent’s PDD and sanctions in the amount of $2,500 pursuant to Family Code § 2107. Respondent opposes the requests and cites administrative issues as the cause of the delay in completing the PDDs.
The court finds the motion to compel is moot as Respondent has already served her PDD.
Regarding the request for sanctions, the request is denied as it does not appear that Respondent acted in bad faith in her delay of completing and serving her PDD.
While Respondent’s actions were not intentional, it still did result in the filing of the present RFO. For that reason, the court does believes it would be fair to direct to Respondent to prepare the FOAH instead of Petitioner despite the fact that he is the moving party. As such, Respondent is directed to prepare the Findings and Orders After Hearing (FOAH); however, this order is effective immediately upon the court’s adoption of the tentative ruling and is not conditioned on the preparation of the FOAH.
TENTATIVE RULING #2: THE COURT FINDS THE MOTION TO COMPEL IS MOOT AS RESPONDENT HAS ALREADY SERVED HER PDD.
REGARDING THE REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS, THE REQUEST IS DENIED AS IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT RESPONDENT ACTED IN BAD FAITH IN HER DELAY OF COMPLETING AND SERVING HER PDD.
RESPONDENT IS DIRECTED TO PREPARE THE FINDINGS AND ORDERS AFTER HEARING (FOAH); HOWEVER, THIS ORDER IS EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY UPON THE COURT’S ADOPTION OF THE TENTATIVE RULING AND IS NOT CONDITIONED ON THE PREPARATION OF THE FOAH.
NO HEARING ON THIS MATTER WILL BE HELD UNLESS A REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT IS TRANSMITTED ELECTRONICALLY THROUGH THE COURT’S WEBSITE OR
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?”
BY PHONE CALL TO THE COURT AT (530) 621-6725 BY 4:00 P.M. ON THE DAY THE TENTATIVE RULING IS ISSUED. CAL. RULE CT. 3.1308; LOCAL RULE 8.05.07; SEE ALSO LEWIS V. SUPERIOR COURT, 19 CAL.4TH 1232, 1247 (1999). NOTICE TO ALL PARTIES OF A REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT AND THE GROUNDS UPON WHICH ARGUMENT IS BEING REQUESTED MUST BE MADE BY PHONE CALL OR IN PERSON BY 4:00 P.M. ON THE DAY THE TENTATIVE RULING IS ISSUED. CAL. RULE CT. 3.1308; LOCAL RULE 8.05.07.