DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
FDV-25-818707·sf·FamilyLaw·Contempt
Hearing in about 1 hourContinued for arraignment.

CASEY NOELLE NUCKOLS FLORIANI v. NICCOLO TORU FLORIANI

Order to Show Cause and Affidavit for Contempt

Hearing date
Aug 25, 2026
Department
404
Judge
Prevailing
N/A

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Monetary amounts referenced

$327.80$277.25$605.06

Parties

PetitionerCasey Noelle Nuckols Floriani
RespondentNiccolo Toru Floriani

Attorneys

Margaret Pendergastfor Respondent

Ruling

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

5) 6 CASEY NOELLE NUCKOLS FLORIANI,) Case Number: FDV-25-818707) 7 Petitioner) Hearing Date: August 25, 2026) 8 VS.) Hearing Time: 9:00 AM) 9 NICCOLO TORU FLORIANI,) Department: 404) 10 Respondent) Presiding: AI MORI) 11) 12 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND AFFIDAVIT FOR CONTEMPT 13 TENTATIVE RULING 14 The Court has been informed that attorney Margaret Pendergast is available to accept 15 appointment as Mother’s contempt counsel. The parties are ordered to appear on 8/25/2026 at 9AM 16 in Dept. 404 in-person or by Zoom video. If a party chooses to appear by Zoom, that party must 17 abide by the Notice and Instructions for Remote Appearance in San Francisco Family Court set 18 forth above. 19

20 A. Procedural History 21 1) On for hearing is Respondent Niccolo Floriani (Father)’s Order to Show Cause and Affidavit for 22 Contempt filed 5/4/2026 wherein Father alleges that Petitioner Casey Floriani (Mother) violated 23 the Findings and Order After Hearing filed 3/2/2026 which provides Father with supervised 24 visitation at Rally for one hour per week plus two hours of professionally supervised visitation 25 each week. The order also provides that Father shall be solely responsible and pay all costs of the 26 supervised visits.

Father states that on 4/23/2026, he was notified by a Child First Supervised 27 Visitation Program Direct Eric Baker that Mother was cancelling the visitation set for Saturday, 28 4/25/2026. Father states he immediately responded that the cancellation was without his consent 29 and unacceptable. Father states he is required to give 72 hours advance notice for cancellations;

1 otherwise, he is charged $327.80 for visitation by Child First and $277.25 for an American Sign 2 Language interpreter. Father states that on Friday, 4/24/2026, Mr. Baker emailed him stating he 3 had communicated his request to Mother that the 4/25/2026 visit remain in place. Father states 4 that on 4/25/2026, he arrived at the Academy of Science in San Francisco at 2:50 PM and he 5 waited until 5:00 PM and Mother did not show up. Supervised visitation provider Lowell Davis 6 documented that Mother was a “no-show” and left with the ASL interpreter.

In addition to his 7 request for an OSC Re: Contempt, Father requests that Mother reimburse him for the $605.06 he 8 was charged by the visitation supervisor and the ASL interpreter plus attorney’s fees and costs for 9 bringing this OSC Re: Contempt. 10 2) Per the Proof of Service filed 6/24/2026, Mother was personally served with the OSC: Re 11 Contempt on 6/23/2026. 12 3) At the prior 7/9/2026 hearing on Father’s OSC Re: Contempt, the Court made a finding that 13 Mother qualifies for appointment of contempt counsel and continued matter to 8/25/2026 for 14 arraignment. 15 4) On 7/13/2026, Judge Wiley issued a 1-year Domestic Violence Restraining Order protecting 16 Mother against Father. 17 5) Mother has not filed any pleadings with respect to Father’s OSC Re: Contempt. 18 B.

Findings and Order 19 1) The Court has been informed that attorney Margaret Pendergast is prepared to accept 20 appointment as Mother’s contempt counsel. The parties are ordered to appear on 8/25/2026 21 at 9AM in Dept. 404 in-person or by Zoom video. 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