- Online Services Pay Fines, Transcripts...
- Forms & Filing Forms, Fee Schedule...
- Self-Help Self-Rep, Info, FAQs...
- Divisions Civil, Criminal, Family...
- General Info Local Rules, ADA, Maps...
LAW & MOTION TENTATIVE RULING – FAMILY LAW Dept. 23
JUDGE BRADFORD J. DEMEO
IN COURTROOM 23
FRIDAY, November 14, 2014 @ 9:30 A.M.
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) 521-6732 by 4:00 p.m., November 13, 2014. Any party requesting an appearance must notify all other opposing parties of their intent to appear.
Saldana vs. Noh SFL-54249
The Motion for New Trial is DENIED. A Tentative Decision After Trial was filed and served on the parties on July 22, 2014. Petitioner Jose Saldana filed Objections to the Tentative Decision After Trial. Judgment After Trial was filed and served on the parties on August 12, 2014, addressing objections filed by Petitioner. The issues of name change and attorney fees were addressed in the Judgment After Trial in response to Petitioner’s first set of Objections and his Motion for New Trial filed in August 2014. Petitioner thereafter filed a second set of Objections to Judgment After Trial. Rulings on Petitioner’s Objections to Judgment After Trial were filed and served on the parties September 9, 2014. Procedurally, Petitioner has been provided the rights pursuant to California Rule of Court 3.1590 by the Court receiving and ruling on objections to the Tentative Decision After Trial and the Judgment After Trial. The balance of the requests for relief in that Motion address factual findings under theories of “accident”, “surprise”, insufficiency of evidence”, and “error of law”. This Court finds no basis under these theories to grant the Motion for New Trial.
Roberts-Cagle vs. Cagle SFL-57222
Bourden vs. Johnson SFL-60902
The Petitioner’s Request for Order for Respondent to sell Toyota Solara, License #872 CAD, and pay arrears is GRANTED.
Rodriquez vs. Avila SFL-61408
Matter continued to December 19, 2014 at 9:30 am.
IRMO Ontivaros SFL-67602
The Motion to Quash is DENIED without prejudice to refile with a proper declaration under penalty of perjury in support of the allegations in the moving papers, and for failure to file a proper and complete proof of service of the moving papers. Movant did not provide the court with a proper declaration in support of his allegations. Movant may refile his motion properly.