| Case | County / Judge | Motion | Ruling | Indexed | Hearing |
|---|
Petitioner's Request for Order re Property Control
conduct-based sanctions--as to both parties and their respective attorneys--so that this decision may be made in the context of the litigation as a whole and in respect to the nature and extent of each party's efforts to cooperate in good faith, compliance with disclosure and discovery duties, and the reasonableness of settlement offers and responses thereto. (See, Marriage of Davenport (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 1507, 1515; Marriage of Freeman (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 1, 6 [section 271 "contemplates that sanctions may be assessed at the end of the lawsuit, when the extent and severity of the party's bad conduct can be judged"]; Hogoboom & King, Cal. Prac. Guide Family L. (TRG 2026) Ch. 14-A, Sec. 14:265a [noting and discussing the split of authority on this point].)
That said, the Court will not hesitate to award section 271 sanctions, including sua sponte with notice and opportunity to be heard, if necessary to deter or rectify immediate misconduct but in this long-running and relatively complex dissolution case, the immediacy of a 271 award is not at issue, particularly since Petitioner has requested need-based attorney's fees and costs. A 271 award is made irrespective of financial need and the other party's ability to pay. (Marriage of Tharp (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 1295, 1316-1317.)
FL-22-001320 - RIOS VS RIOS Petitioner's Request for Order re Spousal Support, etc.-- DENIED, without prejudice. The Court granted an Order Shortening Time and there is no proof of service on file. Petitioner must appear and/or seek an order to reschedule the hearing and show both due diligence in service and good cause or the matter will be dropped for non-service. (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 5.94(b).)
FL-24-002926 - KREGNESS VS KREGNESS Petitioner's Request for Order re "Reopen Case"-- HEARING REQUIRED. There is no law authorizing a "motion to reopen." This dissolution case was not "closed" subject to being "reopened." Rather, Petitioner failed to appear and failed to prosecute this case as required by law. Accordingly, the Court involuntarily dismissed the case on October 17, 2025. A dismissal order is equivalent to a judgment that terminates the proceedings and extinguishes the Court's jurisdiction other than for a timely filed and served motion to set aside. (
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?”
That said, Petitioner filed the present order request and has proof of personal service on file, both within the six (6) month time limit of Code of Civil Procedure section 473(b), that provides the Court with authority to set aside a dismissal on grounds of mistake, surprise, inadvertence and excusable neglect. Based on Petitioner's declaration, it appears these grounds may exist. But Petitioner must appear and, if Respondent appears, then the Court will entertain the parties' testimony and will exercise discretion pursuant to section 473(b) in granting or denying the request. Otherwise, the matter will be denied and if Petitioner wishes to proceed with divorce, she will have to file a new case.
FL-26-000085 - DIAZ VS ESCOBAR Petitioner's Request for Order re Property Control, etc.-- HEARING REQUIRED. The Court granted temporary orders, shortened time for hearing, and authorized service by publication/posting with a requirement for electronic notice via social media. Proof of Service of Respondent is on file and no Responsive Declaration or other opposition has been filed. Accordingly, the Court is inclined to grant the requested orders but Petitioner and her counsel shall appear in the event that Respondent appears, since both parties have the right to offer their testimony at any hearing on an order request. (Fam. Code, Sec. 217.) The ATRO's will apply once proof of service of Summons and Petition is effectuated.
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: THERE ARE NO TENTATIVES.