DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
FDI-21-794648·sf·FamilyLaw·Production of Documents / Default Judgment Stay
Hearing about 1 month agoDENIED

CELIA RIVERA v. VICTOR PALMER SR

Request for Order re: Production of Withheld Court Documents and Stay of Default Judgment

Hearing date
Jul 16, 2026
Department
403
Prevailing
Defendant

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffCELIA RIVERA
DefendantVICTOR PALMER SR

Attorneys

Wendy Marie Gibsonfor Defendant

Ruling

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

5) 6 CELIA RIVERA,) Case Number: FDI-21-794648) 7 Petitioner) Hearing Date: July 16, 2026) 8 VS.) Hearing Time: 9:00 AM) 9 VICTOR PALMER SR,) Department: 403) 10 Respondent) Presiding: BOBBY P. LUNA) 11) 12 REQUEST FOR ORDER RE: PRODUCTION OF WITHHELD COURT DOCUMENTS WITHHELD 13 BY RESPONDENT AND STAY OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT 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 A.

Procedural History 18 1) The parties are Petitioner Celia Rivera and Respondent Victor Palmer Sr. 19 2) On June 8, 2026, Petitioner filed a Request for Order seeking: 20 a. A court order compelling Respondent’s attorney, Wendy Marie Gibson, to immediately 21 produce copies of the following documents: 22 i. The Default Request/Judgment submitted to the Court on or around May 21, 23 2026; and 24 ii. The Resubmission of the Default Request/Judgment received by the Court on or 25 around May 21, 2026. 26 b.

The Court to pause entry of the final Default Judgment until Petitioner has reviewed both 27 documents and confirmed they accurately reflect the signed Marital Settlement 28 Agreement. 29

1 3) On June 30, 2026, Respondent filed a Responsive Declaration wherein he asks the Court to deny 2 Petitioner’s requests. Respondent asserts that he provided Petitioner with copies of everything he 3 submitted to the Court. Respondent confirms that the Court rejected the submitted documents (as 4 recently as June 25, 2026) because the wrong Court was erroneously listed. 5 B. Findings and Order 6 1) Petitioner’s Request for Order filed June 8, 2026 is DENIED without prejudice as Petitioner’s 7 requested relief is not yet ripe. Further, Petitioner’s request appears to be moot given that 8 Respondent’s Default Request/Judgment was rejected by the Court. 9 2) The Court will prepare the Findings and Order After Hearing. 10

14

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