Petitioner's Request for Order re Reconsideration
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: June 11, 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:
367199 - CAPEDER VS CAPEDER Petitioner's Request for Order re Amendment of QDRO-- HEARING REQUIRED. Petitioner's last order request seeking the same relief was denied without prejudice due to lack of service. While proof of service by mail of Respondent is on file, there is no declaration on file concerning current address verification and Respondent did not file a Responsive Declaration. The matter is post-judgment and Family Code section 215 makes valid and timely individual service of the moving papers a jurisdictional requirement. Accordingly, Petitioner shall appear and satisfy the Court's concerns regarding valid service or the matter will, again, be denied without prejudice unless Respondent also personally appears and waives any objection to notice or service.
FL-20-000712 - BRADSHAW VS BRADSHAW Petitioner's Request for Order re Reconsideration-- DENIED. A statutory motion for reconsideration requires the moving party to establish by affidavit the existence of new or different facts, law or circumstances and that such new or different matter could not, in the exercise of reasonable diligence have been obtained prior to the order or judgment for which reconsideration is being sought. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 1008(a); Cradduck v. Hilton Domestic Operating Co., Inc. (2025) 112 Cal.App.5th 284, 304; Weil & Brown, Cal. Prac. Guide Civ. Pro. Before Trial (TRG 2026) Ch. 9(I)-E, Sec. 9:329.)
Here, the allegedly new evidence consists of Petitioner's alleged attainment post-hearing of the minor child's subjective concerns and views as to, inter alia, the performance of minor's counsel's scope and advocacy. As Respondent's counsel's Objection asserts, this is neither technically "new" nor is the Court required to permit a minor to testify or interview a minor on a motion to have minor's counsel relieved. Rather, that decision is discretionary with the Court based on the best interests of the minor child and, in any event, the weight to be accorded such testimony--assuming Petitioner's allegations are accurate--are also matters for the Court's discretion.
All things considered, the Court finds nothing in the moving or reply papers that requires reconsideration under section 1008, nor is the Court inclined to entertain reconsideration on its motion. Ultimately, minor's counsel remains under the Court's control and supervision. As such, should the Court, or any party, be of the view that minor's counsel should be relieved or replaced, the matter may always be revisited. ///
FL-26-000652 - DEAL VS DEAL Respondent's Request for Order re Property Control, etc.-- HEARING REQUIRED. An Appearance, Stipulation and Waiver was filed on June 8, 2026, along with a Stipulation and Waiver of Final Declaration of Disclosure. Accordingly, it appears Respondent's motion is moot and that an agreement has been reached. The parties are invited to appear and advise the Court as to the status of any agreements and whether the present order request is withdrawn or may be vacated as moot.
The following are the tentative ruling cases calendared before Judge Maria Elena Ramos-Ratliff in Department #25: THERE ARE NO TENTATIVES.