Jul 20, 2017

TENTATIVE RULINGS – FAMILY LAW Dept. 22 LAW & MOTION CALENDAR

HON. JAMES G. BERTOLI
DEPARTMENT 22, Friday, June 23, 2017 @ 9:30 AM. 
(Civil & Family Courthouse, 3055 Cleveland Avenue)

 

 

Tentative Rulings

The following Tentative Rulings will become the ruling of the Court unless a party desires to be heard. If you desire to appear and present oral argument as to any motion, it will be necessary for you to contact the Judicial Assistant by telephone at (707) 521-6723 by 4:00 p.m. on Thursday,  June 22, 2017  Any party requesting an appearance must notify all other opposing parties of their intent to appear.             

 

 

Family Law and Motion
Friday, June 23, 2017

Diaz v. Gelsey
Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel is granted. Minor’s Counsel, Margaret             England, is hereby relieved as counsel. The matter is continued to the calendar of July 17, 2017 at 1:30 p.m. in Department 23 for a determination as to whether substitute counsel for the           minor shall be appointed.

County of Sonoma v. Contreras
Motion for Reconsideration and Motion to Set Aside are denied. As to the Motion for Reconsideration, none of the “new” facts alleged by Father are facts that were unavailable to father prior to this matter being heard. As such, pursuant to CCP Section 1008(a), the request for consideration is denied. Similarly, the Motion to Set Aside the Court’s order based upon the fact that Father was “surprised” when he was not provided with the report from Family Court Services until the day of the hearing does not rise to the level of               “surprise” as that term is used in CCP Section 473(b). Sonoma County Superior Court Local Rule 9.14 requires that the Family Court Services report be delivered         as soon as practicable prior to the hearing. Father received the report prior to the hearing, albeit immediately prior to that hearing. He easily could have requested the Court continue the matter if he felt ill-prepared to go forward after receiving the report. He did not choose to do so and instead, went forward on the day of hearing. To constitute “surprise”, Father had to be placed in an injurious situation unexpectedly. See: Credit Managers Ass’n v. National Independent Business Alliance (1984) 162 Cal.App.3d 1166, 1173. This was not an “unexpected” situation as Father appeared at the hearing knowing that he had not yet received the report from Family Court Services. The motion to set aside is therefore denied.

LaFranchi v. Summers   
Subject to the provisions of Family Code §2337(c)(1), (2), (4-8), The Motion to Bifurcate Marital Status From All Other Issues is granted.

 

© 2017 Superior Court of Sonoma County