| Case | County / Judge | Motion | Ruling | Indexed | Hearing |
|---|
Request for Order Re: Enforcement of Repayment Terms
1 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 2 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 3 UNIFIED FAMILY COURT 4
5) 6 JESUS PINEDA-RAMIREZ,) Case Number: FDV-24-817982) 7 Petitioner) Hearing Date: April 28, 2026) 8 VS.) Hearing Time: 9:00 AM) 9 REBECCA ROSEN,) Department: 403) 10 Respondent) Presiding: BOBBY P. LUNA) 11) 12 REQUEST FOR ORDER RE: ENFORCEMENT OF REPAYMENT TERMS FILED ON MARCH 10, 13 2025 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 Jesus Pineda-Ramirez and Respondent Rebecca Rosen. 19 2) On 9/9/25, Respondent filed a Request for Order seeking enforcement of a Stipulation and Order 20 file dated 3/10/25.
Respondent requests the Court authorize alternative service of her 9/9/25 21 Request for Order under Code of Civil Procedure section 413.30 because she does not have 22 Respondent’s current address and there is a Domestic Violence Restraining Order (DVRO) in 23 place. 24 3) At the prior 11/25/25 hearing, the Court continued the matter to 2/17/26 for lack of service. 25 4) There is still no proof of service on file evidencing Respondent’s 9/9/25 Request for Order was 26 served on Petitioner. 27 5) Petitioner did not file a Responsive Declaration. 28 6) At the prior 2/17/26 hearing, the Court ordered: 29
1 a. The Court finds that Respondent’s 9/9/25 Request for Order was not served at least 16 2 Court days prior to the hearing date as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 3 1005(b). 4 b. The Court further finds that is has insufficient information to grant alternative service at 5 this time as Respondent did not provide the Court with information regarding diligent 6 efforts made to locate and serve Petitioner. Alternative service is appropriate in 7 circumstances where the opposing party cannot, with reasonable diligence, be served in 8 another authorized manner, and exhaustive attempts to locate and serve the opposing 9 party were demonstrated. 10 c.
As such, this matter is continued to 4/28/26 at 9 AM in Dept. 403 for lack of service. 11 d. Respondent is encouraged to seek assistance at from the ACCESS Center if she continues 12 to have trouble effectuating proper service. Information for contacting the ACCESS 13 Center can be found here: https://sf.courts.ca.gov/access-legal-self-help-center. 14 e. At least 16 Court days prior to the next hearing date, Respondent shall file and serve on 15 Petitioner the (a) 9/9/25 Request for Order, (b) 11/25/25 Continuance Order, (c) 16 Continuance Order contained herein, and (d) Tentative Ruling Instructions using a 17 service method authorized by the Code of Civil Procedure (i.e., a person over the age of 18 18 shall mail to Petitioner the (a) Request for Order, (b) Continuance Orders, and (c) 19 Tentative Ruling Instructions, and then Respondent shall file form FL-335 (Proof of 20 Service) with the Court confirming service was effectuated). 21 f.
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?”
At least 9 Court days prior to the next hearing date, Petitioner may file a Responsive 22 Declaration. 23 g. At least 5 Court days prior to the next hearing date, Respondent may file and serve a 24 Reply Declaration. 25 7) Respondent did not file any additional pleadings; there is still no proof of service on file 26 evidencing Respondent’s 9/9/25 Request for Order was served on Petitioner. 27 8) Petitioner did not file a Responsive Declaration. 28 B. Findings and Order 29
1 1) Given that there is still no proof of service on file evidencing Respondent’s 9/9/25 Request for 2 Order was served on Petitioner, The Court finds that Respondent’s 9/9/25 Request for Order was 3 not served at least 16 Court days prior to the hearing date as required by Code of Civil Procedure 4 section 1005(b). 5 2) The Court continues to have insufficient information to grant alternative service at this time as 6 Respondent did not provide the Court with information regarding diligent efforts made to locate 7 and serve Petitioner.
Alternative service is appropriate in circumstances where the opposing party 8 cannot, with reasonable diligence, be served in another authorized manner, and exhaustive 9 attempts to locate and serve the opposing party were demonstrated. 10 3) Based on the foregoing, the Court finds good cause to VACATE the 4/28/26 hearing date. 11 Respondent’s 9/9/25 Request for Order is therefore DENIED without prejudice (i.e., Respondent 12 may refile). 13 4) Respondent is encouraged to seek assistance at from the ACCESS Center if she chooses to refile 14 and continues to have trouble effectuating proper service.
Information for contacting the 15 ACCESS Center can be found here: https://sf.courts.ca.gov/access-legal-self-help-center. 16 5) The Court will prepare the Findings and Order After Hearing. 17
21
25
29