| Case | County / Judge | Motion | Ruling | Indexed | Hearing |
|---|
MOTION FOR JOINDER OF ADDITIONAL PARTIES
1 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 2 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 3 UNIFIED FAMILY COURT 4
5) 6 BRETT LAMY,) Case Number: FDI-25-800840) 7 Petitioner) Hearing Date: May 7, 2026) 8 VS.) Hearing Time: 9:00 AM) 9 LIANA DIMAURO,) Department: 403) 10 Respondent) Presiding: BOBBY P. LUNA) 11) 12 MOTION FOR JOINDER OF ADDITIONAL PARTIES 13 TENTATIVE RULING 14 Having read and considered the pleadings, declarations, and other evidence submitted in this matter, the 15 Court makes the following findings and orders: 16 A. Procedural History 17 1) The parties are Petitioner Brett Lamy and Respondent Liana DiMauro. 18 2) On 1/21/25, Petitioner filed a Petition for Dissolution indicating the date of marriage is 9/19/22 19 and date of separation is 12/8/24 for marriage of 2 years and 2 months. 20 3) On 1/28/26, Respondent filed a Response and Request for Dissolution indicating the date of 21 marriage is 9/19/22; however, the date of separation is 8/18/24. 22 4) On 4/10/26, Petitioner filed a Notice of Motion and Declaration of Joinder seeking to join a third- 23 party, Paul DiMauro (Respondent’s father), to the instant dissolution action because Paul holds 24 title to an investment made during marriage that is controlled by the parties’ premarital agreement 25 and requires characterization as separate or community property.
Petitioner states he filed a 26 separate civil action (case no. CGC-25-629933) though resolution of the civil case is contingent 27 upon this Court’s characterization of property. It is Petitioner position that maintaining parallel 28 civil and family court proceedings risks duplicative litigation and incontinent rulings. Petitioner 29
1 asserts that he would dismiss the civil action if Paul DiMauro were joined in the dissolution 2 action. 3 5) On 4/10/26, Petitioner filed a supportive attorney declaration. 4 6) On 4/10/26, Petitioner filed a Memorandum of Points and Authorities. 5 7) On 4/28/26, Respondent filed a Responsive Declaration. Respondent consents to an order of 6 joinder of Paul DiMauro and Diane DiMauro (Respondent’s parents) as parties to the dissolution 7 proceeding. It is Respondent’s position that characterization of the investment cannot be resolved 8 with the DiMauros’ participation as parties, and joinder serves judicial economy, promotes 9 finality, and avoids the risk of inconsistent rulings in parallel proceedings. 10 B.
Findings and Order 11 1) The Court has discretion to join a third-party holding property in which one of the spouses claims 12 a community interest. See Family Code section 2021; Marriage of Siller (1986) 187 CA3d 36, 13 42. 14 2) However, exercising such discretion is extremely rare and requires that the Court find joinder of a 15 third-party is the only reasonable path given the highly personal nature of dissolution 16 proceedings. Schnabel v. Sup.Ct. (1994) 30 CA4th 758, 763. 17 3) Additionally, the required criteria set forth in
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?”
The Court therefore finds 24 that Paul DiMauro and Diane DiMauro are indispensable and necessary parties to the dissolution 25 action as the nature of the investment prevents a retitling order. 26 5) Accordingly, Petitioner’s Notice of Motion and Declaration of Joinder is GRANTED. Paul 27 DiMauro and Diane DiMauro are hereby joined as parties to the dissolution action. 28 6) The Court reserves jurisdiction over the characterization of the investment. 29 7) The Court will prepare the Findings and Order After Hearing.