DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases

JOHN HOFMEYER v. GABRIELA HOFMEYER

Request for temporary stay; request to establish date of separation

Hearing date
May 28, 2026
Department
404
Judge
Prevailing
N/A
Next hearing
Jun 23, 2026

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PetitionerJohn Hofmeyer
RespondentGabriela Hofmeyer

Ruling

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

5) 6 JOHN HOFMEYER,) Case Number: FDI-18-790640) 7 Petitioner) Hearing Date: May 28, 2026) 8 VS.) Hearing Time: 9:00 AM) 9 GABRIELA HOFMEYER,) Department: 404) 10 Respondent) Presiding: AI MORI) 11) 12 REQUEST FOR ORDER: ESTABLISH DATE OF SEPARATION AS AUGUST 13, 2018; REQUEST 13 FOR ORDER TEMPORARY STAY OF PROPERTY SALE/SORT-SALE ACTIVITY 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

18 A. Petitioner’s Request for Order Filed 3/2/2026 19

20 1) On 3/2/2026, Petitioner John Hofmeyer filed a Request for Order asking the Court for a 21 temporary stay of enforcement of the provision within the Stipulation and Order filed 1/9/2024 22 concerning a short sale of the condominium located at 245 5th Street, Unit 201, San Francisco, 23 California. 24 2) On 4/15/2026, Respondent Gabriela Hofmeyer filed a Responsive Declaration asking the 25 Court to deny Petitioner’s requested relief. 26 3) On the Court’s own motion, the hearing on Petitioner’s 3/2/2026 Request for Order is hereby 27 continued to 6/23/2026 at 9:00 AM in Dept. 404 to join the hearing already set on that date 28 on a Petitioner’s related Request for Order filed 5/4/2026. 29

1 B. Petitioner’s Request for Order Filed 4/6/2026 2

3 1) On 4/6/2026, Petitioner filed a Request for Order asking the Court to make a finding that the 4 parties’ date of separation is 8/13/2018. 5 2) On 5/14/2026, Respondent filed a Responsive Declaration which states: “There is no actual 6 dispute regarding Petitioner’s proposed date of separation. However, the issue of date of 7 separation is ultimately a trial issue and is therefore not appropriate for determination through the 8 present hearing process. The parties could have resolved The parties could have resolved this 9 matter informally and without court intervention.

Because there is no contention requiring 10 immediate determination, judicial resources need not be expended on a separate hearing 11 regarding the issue. Accordingly, Respondent respectfully requests that the Court make a finding 12 adopting Petitioner's date of separation and vacate the presently scheduled hearing on this issue.” 13 3) The Court finds that the parties’ date of separation is 8/13/2018. 14

15 C. Preparation of Order 16

17 1) The Court will prepare the Findings and Order After Hearing. 18

22

26

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