Request for Order (RFO); Ex Parte Application
LAW & MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS DEPARTMENT 5 May 28, 2026 8:30 AM/1:30 PM
19. AND 20. NADIA STAMOS V. PETER STAMOS 25FL0600 AND 25FL0604
On February 24, 2026, the parties were referred to Child Custody Recommending Counseling (CCRC) with an appointment on March 25, 2026 and a review hearing on May 21, 2026.
On May 12, 2026, parties submitted a stipulation to consolidate the review hearing set for May 21st with the review hearing set for May 28th. The court signed and adopted the stipulation as its order.
Both parties appeared at CCRC and fully participated. The parties were unable to reach any agreements. A report with recommendations was filed with the court on May 7, 2026 and mailed to the parties on May 8, 2026.
Respondent filed a supplemental declaration on May 8, 2026. It was served electronically the same day. Respondent is requesting shared custody. Respondent is requesting therapy for the minors and co-parenting education for Petitioner.
The court has read and considered the May 7th CCRC report and the filings as outlined above and finds the recommendations to be in the best interests of the minors. The court adopts the recommendations as set forth in the May 7th CCRC report.
Respondent filed an ex parte application for the enforcement of the court’s prior orders on March 23, 2026. Petitioner filed a responsive declaration on March 23rd. The court granted the ex parte in part and denied the ex parte in part on March 24, 2026. The court reiterated that all prior orders remained in full force and effect, including the order for Petitioner to vacate the former marital residence. The court reserved on Respondent’s request for Family Code section 271 sanctions. The court likewise reserved on Petitioner’s request for Family Code section 2030 attorney’s fees. Respondent filed an RFO on March 24, 2026, which seeks the same orders requested in the ex parte application. Proof of Service shows Petitioner was personally served on March 25, 2026. Petitioner was also electronically served on March 24th.
There have been no additional filings related to the pending RFO. Therefore, the court presumes Petitioner has vacated the residence.
All prior orders regarding the former marital residence remain in full force and effect.
The court continues to reserve on Respondent’s request for Family Code section 271 sanctions, until the time of trial.
LAW & MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS DEPARTMENT 5 May 28, 2026 8:30 AM/1:30 PM
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?”
As to Petitioner’s request for Family Code section 2030 attorney’s fees, that request is denied without prejudice. Petitioner failed to file and serve an Income and Expense Declaration with her request for attorney’s fees. Likewise, Petitioner did not complete the required FL-158. Therefore, Petitioner’s request is denied without prejudice.
All prior orders remain in full force and effect. 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 RULINGS #19 AND #20: THE COURT HAS READ AND CONSIDERED THE MAY 7TH CCRC REPORT AND FILING AS OUTLINED ABOVE AND FINDS THE RECOMMENDATIONS TO BE IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE MINORS. THE COURT ADOPTS THE RECOMMENDATIONS AS SET FORTH IN THE MAY 7TH CCRC REPORT.
ALL PRIOR ORDERS REGARDING THE FORMER MARITAL RESIDENCE REMAIN IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT.
THE COURT CONTINUES TO RESERVE ON RESPONDENT’S REQUEST FOR FAMILY CODE SECTION 271, UNTIL THE TIME OF TRIAL.
AS TO PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR FAMILY CODE SECTION 2030 ATTORNEY’S FEES, THAT REQUEST IS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO FILE THE PROPER PAPERWORK.
ALL PRIOR ORDERS REMAIN IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT. 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 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
LAW & MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS DEPARTMENT 5 May 28, 2026 8:30 AM/1:30 PM
THE DAY THE TENTATIVE RULING IS ISSUED. CAL. RULE CT. 3.1308; LOCAL RULE 8.05.07.