MALEK VS MALEK

8005328 - REEVES VS REEVES Respondent's Request for Order re "Vacate Orders," etc.-- DENIED, without prejudice.

Respondent has filed an appeal that is presently pending and in which a default in designation of the record was recently cured. Accordingly, the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain Respondent's request until that appeal has been decided or dismissed, and the remittitur issues from the Fifth District Court of Appeal returning jurisdiction to the Court. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 916(a) ["...the perfecting of an appeal stays proceedings in the trial court upon the judgment or order appealed from or upon the matters embraced therein or affected thereby, including enforcement of the judgment or order..."], emphasis added.)

FL-19-003455 - MALEK VS MALEK Respondent's Request for Order re "Enforce Judgment," etc.-- HEARING REQUIRED.

Petitioner's Responsive Declaration disputes Respondent's factual allegations regarding non-compliance with orders regarding custodial accounts. This factual dispute necessitates a hearing. Both parties are reminded of the duty to meet and confer in good faith as to every issue raised in a request for order, and to exchange any and all documentary or other evidence on which either side intends to rely for proof of any material fact at the hearing. (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 5.98(a),(b).)

The following are the tentative ruling cases calendared before Judge J. Richard Distaso in Department #13: THERE ARE NO TENTATIVES.

The following are the tentative ruling cases calendared before Judge Sarah Birmingham in Department #14: THERE ARE NO TENTATIVES.

The following are the tentative ruling cases calendared before Judge Maria Elena Ramos-Ratliff in Department #25:

FL-25-001274 - POULOS VS POULOS Attorney for Respondent's Motion to Be Relieved-- HEARING REQUIRED.

While the Court finds that the grounds for involuntary withdrawal have been sufficiently averred, and that granting relief is unlikely to result in prejudice to the client given the current procedural posture, counsel for Respondent served the moving papers by mail and electronically, but counsel's declaration concedes that verification of the address for mail service has not been possible within the preceding three months and there is no consent for electronic service on file for Respondent. This is technically insufficient service under the Rules of Court but the Court may override this for good cause and invites counsel for Respondent, and Respondent should the client have received actual notice, to appear and be heard. (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.1362(d).)