Sep 19, 2014

Related Links

Frias SFL-20214

           

Petitioner Felipe Frias has filed a motion to enforce the court’s August 29, 2007 order.  Petitioner must serve the respondent Patricia Felipe with a copy of the Request for Order along with a notice resetting the calendar date.  Then petitioner must file the Proof of Service with this court prior to the next date establishing that those documents were served on respondent in compliance with California Code of Civil Procedure section 1005(b).

This matter is continued to November 7, 2014, 9:30 in Dept. 23.

 

NOTE: A judgment of Dissolution was filed in this case on 8/8/14 which contains the order from August 29, 2007. 

 

 

Ferwerda SFL-38726

 

Respondent moves to compel various discovery responses and sanctions.  Petitioner opposes the motion and moves for reconsideration of the prior ruling on Respondent’s earlier motion to compel discovery responses.           

 

First, regarding the request for reconsideration, the requirements for this request are: 1) It must be brought before the same judge that made the order; 2) it must be “made within 10 days after service upon the party of notice of entry of the order”; 3) it must be based on “new or different facts, circumstances or law” than those before the court at the time of the original ruling; 4) it must be supported by declaration stating the previous order, by which judge it was made, and the new or different facts, circumstances or law claimed to exist; and 5) it must be made and decided before entry of judgment. (CCP1008). Wife has not provided any new or different facts, circumstances or law other than those before the court at the original hearing.  Therefore, this request is denied, but moot.  (see ruling below regarding discovery after entry of judgment)

 

Second, Marriage of Boblitt (2014) 223 Cal.App. 4th 1004 holds unequivocally as follows:  “Thus, we conclude there is no automatic right to conduct discovery under the Civil Discovery Act in connection with a post judgment (emphasis added) motion in a marital dissolution proceeding.  To secure the right to conduct such discovery, a party must secure the agreement of the other party or must obtain a court order for leave of court to conduct discovery.”  This case was published on February 7, 2014 and, therefore, is the current controlling law regarding post judgment discovery.  Respondent’s motion is denied in its entirety as the respondent has not sought and obtained an order re-opening discovery, nor have the parties agreed to re-open discovery.  Orders previously made are left for Judge Demeo to address as he sees fit.

 

 

Evans SFL-65516

 

This matter is continued to Monday September 22, 2014 to be heard in conjunction with the motion set that date for attorney fees and sanctions.                         

No appearance needed.

           

 

Woodward SFL-63213

 

            A stipulation and order was signed and filed. This matter has been dropped from the Law & Motion calendar.         

 

Bruner/Kristensen. SFL-67713

 

Respondent moves for an order quashing service of the Sonoma County UPA action.  Petitioner was not served with the request until 9/17/14 (no proof of service in court file) and is requesting a continuance based on late service.  Additionally, the court notes that the motion was filed on 9/10/14 and set 9 days later which did not allow for timely service absent an order shortening time.

           

          This matter is continued to 10/7/14 at 1:30 in Department 23 to be heard along with the companion case, SFL-67515.

 

LAW & MOTION TENTATIVE RULING – FAMILY LAW Dept. 23 

COMMISSIONER BAYLES-FIGHTMASTER  FOR JUDGE BRADFORD J. DEMEO
IN COURTROOM 23
FRIDAY, September 19, 2014 @ 9:30 A.M.

 

Tentative Rulings - issued by Commissioner Bayles-Fightmaster

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., September 18, 2014. Any party requesting an appearance must notify all other opposing parties of their intent to appear. 

      

           

 

Frias SFL-20214

Petitioner Felipe Frias has filed a motion to enforce the court’s August 29, 2007 order. Petitioner must serve the respondent Patricia Felipe with a copy of the Request for Order along with a notice resetting the calendar date. Then petitioner must file the Proof of Service with this court prior to the next date establishing that those documents were served on respondent in compliance with California Code of Civil Procedure section 1005(b).

This matter is continued to November 7, 2014, 9:30 in Dept. 23.

NOTE: A judgment of Dissolution was filed in this case on 8/8/14 which contains the order from August 29, 2007.

Ferwerda SFL-38726

Respondent moves to compel various discovery responses and sanctions. Petitioner opposes the motion and moves for reconsideration of the prior ruling on Respondent’s earlier motion to compel discovery responses.

First, regarding the request for reconsideration, the requirements for this request are: 1) It must be brought before the same judge that made the order; 2) it must be “made within 10 days after service upon the party of notice of entry of the order”; 3) it must be based on “new or different facts, circumstances or law” than those before the court at the time of the original ruling; 4) it must be supported by declaration stating the previous order, by which judge it was made, and the new or different facts, circumstances or law claimed to exist; and 5) it must be made and decided before entry of judgment. (CCP1008). Wife has not provided any new or different facts, circumstances or law other than those before the court at the original hearing. Therefore, this request is denied, but moot. (see ruling below regarding discovery after entry of judgment)

Second, Marriage of Boblitt (2014) 223 Cal.App. 4th 1004 holds unequivocally as follows: “Thus, we conclude there is no automatic right to conduct discovery under the Civil Discovery Act in connection with a post judgment (emphasis added) motion in a marital dissolution proceeding. To secure the right to conduct such discovery, a party must secure the agreement of the other party or must obtain a court order for leave of court to conduct discovery.” This case was published on February 7, 2014 and, therefore, is the current controlling law regarding post judgment discovery. Respondent’s motion is denied in its entirety as the respondent has not sought and obtained an order re-opening discovery, nor have the parties agreed to re-open discovery. Orders previously made are left for Judge Demeo to address as he sees fit.

Evans SFL-65516

This matter is continued to Monday September 22, 2014 to be heard in conjunction with the motion set that date for attorney fees and sanctions.

No appearance needed.

Woodward SFL-63213

A stipulation and order was signed and filed. This matter has been dropped from the Law & Motion calendar.

Bruner/Kristensen. SFL-67713

Respondent moves for an order quashing service of the Sonoma County UPA action. Petitioner was not served with the request until 9/17/14 (no proof of service in court file) and is requesting a continuance based on late service. Additionally, the court notes that the motion was filed on 9/10/14 and set 9 days later which did not allow for timely service absent an order shortening time.

This matter is continued to 10/7/14 at 1:30 in Department 23 to be heard along with the companion case, SFL-67515.

 

© 2014 Superior Court of Sonoma County