- Home
- 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...
Home » Online Services » Tentative Rulings » Family Law - Dept 23
Related Links
LAW & MOTION TENTATIVE RULING – FAMILY LAW Dept. 23
JUDGE NANCY CASE SHAFFER
IN COURTROOM 23
FRIDAY, May 11, 2012 @ 9:30 A.M.
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., May 10, 2012. Any party requesting an appearance must notify all other opposing parties of their intent to appear.
1. SFL 28724, Manners v. Dinter: Respondent’s motion to reconsider is CONTINUED to the date and time of the next review hearing in this case, which is set for June 11, 2012 at 1:30 p.m. in Department 23.
2. SFL 51103 IRMO Doughty: The motion of Charlotte Creaghan to withdraw as attorney for Respondent Wendy Doughty is GRANTED.
3. SFL 52200 IRMO Hanson:
a. Motion to Compel Production of Documents, Sanctions. GRANTED IN PART. Wife is ordered to serve complete responses to the Request for Production of Documents Petitioner served on January 30, 2012 on or before June 11, 2012. The court will reserve ruling on requests for Sanctions until the pending disputes over child custody, visitation, and Wife’s alleged non-compliance with the job search order have been resolved. (NOTE: DISCOVERY RESPONSES ARE NOT FILED WITH THE COURT)
b. Motion to Produce Preliminary Financial Disclosures, comply with job search order, sanctions: GRANTED IN PART. Respondent is ordered to serve her Preliminary Financial Disclosure on or before June 11, 2012. (NOTE: THIS PRELIMINARY DECLARATIONS OF DISCLOSURE ARE NOT FILED WITH THE COURT). Respondent was already ordered to engage in a job search pursuant to the terms of the Stipulation and Order filed February 8, 2012. If, as appears to be the case, Respondent has failed to comply with the job search order, Petitioner may pursue remedies for violation of the order as provided by law. The court will reserve ruling on requests for Sanctions until the pending disputes over child custody, visitation, and Wife’s alleged non-compliance with the job search order have been resolved.
4. SFL 53714, IRMO Sharp: Timely motion to set aside default is GRANTED. (CCP 473(B); Garcia v. Garcia (1951) 105 Cal.App.2nd 289, 290; Hambrick v. Hambrick (1946) 77 Cal.App.2d 372, 375; Caton v. Caton (1955) 131 Cal.App.2d 451, 454 (and cases cited).
5. SFL 54704, Zambrano v. Bechtter: Motion to set aside default and proceed by way of Petition for Nullity is GRANTED.
