| Case | County / Judge | Motion | Ruling | Indexed | Hearing |
|---|
Request for Order (RFO) seeking custody, visitation, and property control orders
LAW & MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS DEPARTMENT 5 April 16, 2026 8:30 a.m./1:30 p.m.
1. RONGJING BECKER V. GARY JAMES BECKER 25FL1187
On January 23, 2026, Petitioner filed a Request for Order (RFO) seeking custody, visitation, and property control orders. The parties were referred to Child Custody Recommending Counseling (CCRC) and a review hearing was set for the present date. There is no Proof of Service for the RFO or the CCRC referral. Additionally, neither party appeared at CCRC and Respondent has not filed a Responsive Declaration to Request for Order.
This matter is dropped from calendar due to lack of proper service.
TENTATIVE RULING #1: THIS MATTER IS DROPPED FROM CALENDAR DUE TO LACK OF PROPER SERVICE.
NO HEARING ON THIS MATTER WILL BE HELD UNLESS A REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT IS TRANSMITTED ELECTRONICALLY THROUGH THE COURT’S WEBSITE OR 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.
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?”