Jan 22, 2021
A A A

TENTATIVE RULINGS – FAMILY LAW

 

Dept. 22     LAW & MOTION CALENDAR

HON. JAMES G. BERTOLI
January 22, 2021 @ 9:30 a.m. in DEPT. 22 - REMOTE via Zoom

 

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, January 21, 2021. Any party requesting an appearance must notify all other opposing parties of their intent to appear.

Please Note: If appearance is requested the hearing will be held remotely via Zoom.

 

 

LAW & MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS

DEPARTMENT 22

JUDGE JAMES G. BERTOLI

January 22, 2021 at 9:30 a.m.

PLEASE NOTE: All matters will be heard remotely via Zoom.

 

SFL082073 IRMO FITZPATRICK WEISS/WEISS

          Appearance required.

 

SFL082895 IRMO MURRAY GARDUNO/GARDUNO

          Motion to Set Aside Order of May 26, 2020 is denied. There has been no showing of actual fraud as required by Fam. Code §3691(a). The remaining issues of vehicle title, return of mail, mortgage expenses, and telephone calls for the minor children are matters to be heard on a Request for Order (“RFO”) calendar. As such, those remaining issues are continued to the RFO calendar of February 24, 2021 at 1:30 p.m. in Department 22 with appearances to be made by the parties via Zoom.

 

SFL086982 IRMO KOHL

          Motion for Change of Venue denied. Respondent has failed to show that there is either crucial witness(es) and/or crucial evidence in Los Angeles County that would warrant the Court exercising its discretion and ordering this action transferred to Los Angeles County. See: Code of Civil Procedure §397(c).

 

SFL086989 RAMIREZ V. KING

 

          Motion to Quash Summons is denied as untimely. Respondent had 30 days from the date of personal service of the summons (October 28, 2020) to file her motion to quash, specifically by November 27, 2020. Having not filed the motion until November 30, 2020, the motion is untimely. See CRC 5.63(b). The Court also notes that although the record is not entirely clear, it appears that Respondent is attempting to utilize her action under the Domestic Violence Prevention Act (“DVPA”) in Santa Clara County as the basis for quashing the Sonoma County summons. It should be noted the CRC 5.63(b)(2) applies only when there is “…another action pending between the parties for the same cause.” An action under the DVPA is not the same cause as Petitioner’s parentage action that is pending in Sonoma County.

 

 *This is the end of these Tentative Rulings*

 

 

 

  

© 2021 Superior Court of Sonoma County