PAMELA GREEN SIECK v. CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL SIECK

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

5) 6 PAMELA GREEN SIECK,) Case Number: FDV-26-819014) 7 Petitioner) Hearing Date: April 30, 2026) 8 VS.) Hearing Time: 9:00 AM) 9 CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL SIECK,) Department: 403) 10 Respondent) Presiding: BOBBY P. LUNA) 11) 12 NOTICE OF HEARING (DOMESTIC VIOLENCE); REQUEST FOR ORDER TEMPORARY 13 EMERGENCY ORDER, DISQUALIFICATION OF COUNSEL DOUGLAS RAPPAPORT, 14 ATTORNEY FEES, & ORDER SHORTENING TIME; REQUEST FOR ORDER TEMPORARY 15 EMERGENCY ORDER, OST ON MOTION FOR CHANGE OF VENUE TO NAPA COUNTY; 16 REQUEST FOR ORDER TEMPORARY EMERGENCY ORDER, ORDER SHORTENING TIME AND 17 BIFURBICATION TRIAL ISSUES 18 TENTATIVE RULING 19 The parties are ordered to appear.

The parties may appear in person in Dept. 403 or remotely by 20 Zoom video. If a party chooses to appear by video, that party must abide by the Notice and 21 Instructions for Remote Appearances in San Francisco Family Court set forth above. 22 A. Procedural History 23 1) The parties are Petitioner Pamela Evelyn Sieck (Mother) and Respondent Christopher Sieck 24 (Father). They share one minor child: Eugene Sieck (DOB: 02/07/20). 25 2) On March 10, 2026, Mother filed a Request for Domestic Violence Restraining Order (DVRO) 26 seeking protection from Father.

The matter was set for hearing on April 1, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. in 27 Department 403. 28 3) On March 24, 2026, Father filed the following three ex parte applications: 29 a. Order Shortening Time (OST) on motion for change of venue to Napa County;

1 b. OST and bifurcation of trial issues; and 2 c. Motion for disqualification of counsel Douglas Rappaport, attorney fees, and an OST. 3 4) The Court denied Father’s request for an OST on all three motions and set the matter for regular 4 hearing on April 30, 2026 at 9:00 a.m., in Department 403. 5 5) On April 1, 2026, an initial hearing was held on Mother’s Request for DVRO, and the Court 6 continued the matter to April 30, 2026 at 9:00 a.m. to allow for adjudication of Father’s three 7 motions.

As to custody and visitation, the Court also ordered that “[w]hen the Napa County 8 Order is filed, which grants joint legal and joint physical custody to the parties and sets forth a 9 visitation schedule for Mr. Sieck, the Napa County order shall supersede the San Francisco 10 orders.” 11 6) On March 24, 2026, Mother filed Responsive Declaration to the three motions filed by Father in 12 which she asks this Court to deny the relief sought by Father. 13 7) On April 17, 2026, Mother filed a Declaration of Tracy Gallard re: Court Filings, which has been 14 read and considered by the Court. 15 8) On April 17, 2026, Mother filed a Supplemental Declaration of Doug Rappaport re: Jurisdiction, 16 which has been read and considered by the Court. 17 9) On April 24, 2026, Father filed Respondent’s Motion to Strike Portions of Petitioner’s 18 “Supplemental Declaration” Filed April 17, 2026, Pursuant to CRC 5.111, which has been read 19 and considered by the Court. 20 B.