Alena E. Calder v. Ludwig C. Calder

Public policy favors bifurcation and termination of marital status.

2) Since denial of such a request would conflict with public policy, the opposing party must show compelling evidence that actual prejudice would result; procedural objections do not constitute compelling evidence. (See Gionis v. Sup.Ct. (1988) 202 CCA3d 786, 788-90).

3) Based on the pleadings filed with the Court and signed under penalty of perjury, the Court finds that Father did not meet this burden. The Court further finds that:

a. Mother filed a Petition for Dissolution on 8/1/25.

b. Under Family Code section 2339(a), the Court first acquired jurisdiction over Father when Father was served with Mother’s Petition and Summons on 8/7/25.

c. Father did not file a Response and Request for Dissolution.

d. Within the Petition, Mother indicates that both parties were residents of California for at least six months and of San Francisco County for at least three months immediately preceding the filing of the Petition.

e. Within the Petition, Mother requests a divorce based on irreconcilable differences.

f. On 1/22/26, Mother filed a Declaration Regarding Service of Declaration of Disclosure and Income and Expense Declaration stating that Mother’s Preliminary Declaration of Disclosure was served on Father by e-mail on 1/16/26.

g. On 4/13/26, Father filed a filed a Declaration Regarding Service of Declaration of Disclosure and Income and Expense Declaration stating that Father’s Preliminary Declaration of Disclosure was served on the other party’s attorney by e-mail on 4/12/26.

h. In form FL-315 (Request for Separate Trial), which Mother attached to her 1/30/26 Request for Order, Mother responded “NONE” to the prompt “All pension or retirement plans in which the community has an interest are listed below.” Father did not allege any pension or retirement plans in which the community has an interest in his responsive pleadings. The Court therefore finds that there are no retirement plans that need to be joined in this action under Family Code section 2337(d). 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29

4) Based on the foregoing, Mo ther’s request to bifurcate and terminate the parties’ marital status is GRANTED. Each party is restored to their previous single status as of 4/23/26. The Court finds that this termination date meets the requirement set forth in Family Code section 2339(a).

5) As set forth in the attached Bifurcation of Status of Marriage (FL-347), the protect ions of Family Code section 2337(c)(1)-(6) shall apply.

6) The parties are reminded that despite the termination of their marital status the St andard Family Law Restraining Orders set forth in the Summon continue to apply to both parties per Family Code section 233(a).

7) The Court’s jurisdiction to adjudicate all remaining issues in this dissolution matter is reserved.