Petitioner's Request for Order re Child Custody, etc.; Respondent's Request for Order re stay or dismissal pursuant to forum non conveniens
Stanislaus County - FamilyLaw - https://www.stanislaus.courts.ca.gov/online-services/tentative-rulings/family-law-t entative-rulings Family Law Tentative Rulings
The family court issues tentative ruling announcements on the court day prior to the scheduled hearing for specific types of motions. Tentative rulings are only provided on the Internet and posted in the clerk's office lobby. Internet postings occur at 3:30 p.m. daily. Parties are not required to give notice of intent to appear to preserve the right to a hearing. The tentative ruling will not become final until the hearing. (Stan. Cnty. Local Rules, rule 7.05.1)
However, as a courtesy to the Court, and other parties or counsel with matters on calendar, notice of intended appearance or non-appearance is encouraged and may be sent by e-mail to the following address: familylaw.tentatives@stanct.org between the hours of 1:30 p.m. and 4:00 p.m. If you do not receive a confirmation e-mail from the clerk, you may call to speak directly with a Calendar Clerk at 209-530-3107.
Any party filing pleadings or documents on a tentative ruling matter within five (5) days of the hearing should provide a courtesy copy to the Courtroom Clerk and the Court's Family Law Research Attorney by placing a copy in the drop box slot on the door of Room 223, Second Floor of the main Courthouse. Failure to do so may prevent the Court from consideration of such, may result in a continuance, and/or may be considered in the award of conduct-based fees and costs. (Stan. Cnty. Local Rules, rule 7.05.1(B).)
All parties and counsel are required to meet and confer in a good faith effort to resolve the dispute on any request, motion or hearing, with the exception of those involving domestic violence, and to exchange any documents upon which reliance will be made at the hearing. (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 5.98; Stan. Cnty. Local Rules, rule 7.05.1(C).) Failure to do so may result in a continuance and may be considered in the award of conduct-based fees and costs, or both. If sufficient information regarding an adequate pre-hearing meet and confer effort is not provided in the moving and opposing papers, in the Court's discretion, the matter may be placed at the end of the calendar and not called until the parties or counsel advise the Court that they have complied with their obligations and/or resolved the matter s own motion, the Court orders Respondent to comply within thirty (30) days of this ruling and admonishes Respondent that the failure to do so may result in the striking of the Response and entry of Respondent's default.
Date: 5/20/2026
The following are the tentative ruling cases calendared before Judge Alan Cassidy in Department #11: THERE ARE NO TENTATIVES.
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 following are the tentative ruling cases calendared before Judge J. Richard Distaso in Department #13: THERE ARE NO TENTATIVES.
The following are the tentative ruling cases calendared before Judge Sarah Birmingham in Department #14: THERE ARE NO TENTATIVES.
The following are the tentative ruling cases calendared before Judge Maria Elena Ramos-Ratliff in Department #25:
FL-20-001845 - STAUB VS BOUCHER Petitioner's Request for Order re Child Custody, etc.-- HEARING REQUIRED. Pursuant to the Findings and Order After Hearing (FOAH) of March 19, 2026, the pending Request for Order (RFO) filed by Respondent re stay or dismissal pursuant to forum non conveniens was continued to this date for the purpose of issuance of the Court's decision after supplemental declarations had been filed in the time set by the Court, and deeming the matter submitted as of that date. In the interim, Petitioner filed the instant RFO requesting, inter alia, modification of child custody and visitation orders, to change venue to Lassen County Superior Court, to "enforce judgment" and to "continue hearings."
While child custody and visitation matters are not eligible for tentative ruling, and require mediation prior to hearing, the Court finds that the current procedural posture precludes custody mediation prior to the pending forum non conveniens, and now venue change, RFO's are resolved.
Prior to addressing the merits of Petitioner's RFO, the Court notes that Respondent has objected based on service in that Respondent's counsel is limited scope and that the scope does not include matters outside of the pending forum non conveniens RFO. Respondent asserts that her limited scope counsel of record is not authorized to accept service on her behalf and that she was never personally or otherwise properly served with Petitioner's RFO.
Absent objection, the Court may take judicial notice of its own papers and records, and gives notice to the parties and counsel that the Court intends to do so, but only for the limited purpose of ascertaining the filing and stated scope of representation. (Evid. Code, Sec.Sec. 452(d), 455.) The Notice of Limited Scope filed on January 6, 2026, reads in relevant part: Requesting to Transfer Matter/Determination of Inconvenient Forum until resolution through entry of Findings and Order After Hearing or Stipulation. Does not include preparation for or appearance at settlement conference or trial. (Id., FL-950, p. 2 of 3, No. 3(h).)
The FL-950 Judicial Council form is "mandatory" meaning that it has been approved as a statewide Rule of Court and has the same force and effect. The standard form language on the FL-950 expressly states: The attorney named above is "attorney of record" and available for service of documents only for those issues specifically checked on pages 1 and 2. For all other matters, the party must be served directly. The party's name, address, and phone number are listed below for that purpose. (Ibid., FL-950, No. 5, emphasis added.)
Petitioner requested, and the Court granted, an Order Shortening Time (OST). This means that the RFO's issuance is equivalent to an ex parte "emergency order," and pursuant to the Rules of Court, personal service is arguably required irrespective of that party's represented status. (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 5.92(d)(1) ["If the moving party seeks an order for a shorter time to serve documents or a shorter time until the hearing: (1) The moving party must submit the request as a temporary emergency order on form FL-300 and comply with the requirements of rules 5.151 through 5.169 of the California Rules of Court "], emphasis added.)
Moreover, and although not raised by Respondent, when an RFO seeks modification of child custody or visitation orders after a "family law judgment or after a permanent order was made," then notice and service must additionally comply with the mandates of Family Code section 215. (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 5.92(f)(2).) Section 215 mandates individual party service of motions concerning judgments and orders to which it applies and, absent exceptions not applicable here, expressly provides that "For the purposes of this section, service upon the attorney of record is not sufficient." (Fam. Code, Sec. 215(a), emphasis added.)
The Court must raise this issue sua sponte because, absent compliance with section 215, any order made has been held to be void ab initio and subject to set aside at any time. (Id.; Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 473(d) [void orders]; Marriage of Seagondollar (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 1116, 1130 [postjudgment modification order issued in violation of Fam.C. Sec. 215 is void on its face and subject to collateral attack at any time]; Marriage of Kreiss (1990) 224 Cal.App.3d 1033, 1039-1040; Hogoboom & King, Cal. Prac. Guide Family L. (TRG) Ch. 17-G, Sec. 17:379 et seq.)
Petitioner's Reply brief argues that Respondent's objection is technical and that the circumstances demonstrate that Respondent had, in effect, constructive notice. (Reply, P. Nos. 17-23, pp. 4-5.) Petitioner cites Loeb & Loeb v. Beverly Glen Music, Inc. (1985) 166 Cal.App.3d 1110, in support of this argument. No pinpoint cite is offered and the case is obviously inapposite. Loeb & Loeb is a civil case where the notice period had to do with prejudgment writs of attachment and the Court of Appeal found that a 4-day shortage in the 21-day statutory notice period was not enough to warrant reversal given another provision of the Code of Civil Procedure prohibiting reversals or set aside of final judgments based on error unless it is prejudicial. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 475; Loeb & Loeb, supra, at p. 1115.)
No generally applicable "harmless error" doctrine outside this context is espoused and, even if it were, Family Code section 215 was added to the Family Code in 1992 and no authority is offered, nor has been found, that permits discretionary disregard of compliance; to the contrary, the weight of authority is contra. (See, Marriage of Roden (1987) 193 Cal.App.3d 939, 944; Marriage of Seagondollar, supra, 139 Cal.App.4th at 1130 n. 5; Hogoboom & King, supra, at Sec. 17:380.)
Accordingly, the Court is inclined to deny the Petitioner's RFO without prejudice. Petitioner asks the Court to continue the hearing in order to rectify the service and notice defects but, as this request is made in Petitioner's Reply, Respondent and/or Respondent's counsel is entitled to be heard on this request and are invited to appear to do so. That said, continuing the hearing on Respondent's RFO to a later date may be a moot point depending on the Court's decision on Petitioner's RFO re forum non conveniens.
Moreover, Petitioner's sole reliance on Code of Civil Procedure section 397.5 may be inapt given the existing child support order and registration thereof, since DCSS involvement triggers the discretionary but limited authority to transfer consistent with Family Code section 4251 and 17000 et seq. (dealing with IV-D cases).
Lastly, if the venue motion or transfer request is not denied, whether with or without prejudice, at this hearing, then with the exception of emergency orders involving child safety, etc., the entire case is ordinarily subject to stay, and that would include the Court's pending decision on Respondent's RFO re forum non conveniens, which would leave the matter in procedural limbo. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 397(e); Thompson v. Thames (1997) 57 Cal.App.4th 1296, 1303-1304; Pickwick Stages System v. Superior Court (1934) 138 Cal.App. 448, 449.)
FL-25-002362 - JONES VS HILL Petitioner's Request for Order re Immediate Sale, etc.-- DENIED, without prejudice. Based on Petitioner's Declaration and Respondent's Responsive Declaration, there is no evidence that the lender of the subject residence has declared a default or initiated non-judicial foreclosure proceedings. Short of a showing that the subject asset is subject to unreasonable market risk of loss, the Court has no authority to order a pendente lite sale of a community property asset over objection. (Fam. Code, Sec. 2108.)
Petitioner is represented and no such authority has been provided. While the parties are free to dispose of their community property by stipulation, the Court does not characterize, value and divide the marital estate before trial, nor piece-meal, unless a properly noticed motion is made and granted for good cause to bifurcate the asset and set an early and separate trial on it. The parties are encouraged to meet and confer in good faith as the period of forbearance alleged by Respondent is of finite duration.