Family Law Tentative Rulings - Courtroom 23

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 department’s Judicial Assistant by telephone at (707) 521-6729 by 4:00 p.m. on the day before the hearing. Any party requesting an appearance must notify all other opposing parties of their intent to appear.

PLEASE NOTE: If argument is requested in this matter you may appear in person or remotely via Zoom. To appear via Zoom please see the Zoom information below. 

To appear online via Zoom please use the following link:

• Join the Sonoma County Court Zoom hearing
• Passcode: 611386

To appear via Zoom by phone:

• Call: +1 669-254-5252
• Enter the Meeting ID: 160-825-4529
• Passcode: 611386

1. 24FL00020, Guerrero v Chavarria

The Court's previously published tentative ruling: Motion to Bifurcate Marital Status requires appearances. On 5/13/26 Respondent filed this Petition to Bifurcate Marital Status for Separate Trial. This motion is unopposed by Petitioner who received Notice of this request pursuant to the Proof of Service filed by Respondent on 6/23/26. The Court shall Grant Respondent s request to Bifurcate for Separate Trial the issue of Marital Status which is not opposed by Petitioner. Appearances by the parties are required to obtain jurisdictional facts and identification of all reserved issues. It is SO ORDERED.

2. 24FL01206, Gregoire Dissolution  

Attorney for Petitioner’s Motion to Withdraw is GRANTED.

            On July 7, 2026 Attorney for Petitioner filed this Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel. Petitioner was properly noticed of this request. (Declaration of Attorney).  This motion is unopposed by any party. 

            Accordingly, the Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel is GRANTED.  Moving party is to submit a completed proposed order (MC-053) for court signature and entry should there be no request for oral argument on the hearing date.

 It is SO ORDERED.

3. 25FL00101, Torliatt Dissolution

Motion to Bifurcate Marital Status requires appearances.

            On 7/31/26 Petitioner filed this Petition to Bifurcate Marital Status for Separate Trial. This motion is unopposed by Respondent who received Notice of this request pursuant to the Proof of Service filed by Petitioner on 8/4/26.

            The Court shall Grant Petitioner’s request to Bifurcate for Separate Trial the issue of Marital Status which is not opposed by Respondent. Appearances by the parties are required to obtain jurisdictional facts and identification of all reserved issues.

            It is SO ORDERED.

4. 25FL01607, Nahmens Dissolution

Attorney for Petitioner’s Motion to Withdraw is GRANTED.

            On July 14, 2026 Attorney for Petitioner filed this Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel. Petitioner was properly noticed of this request. (Declaration of Attorney).  This motion is unopposed by any party. 

Accordingly, the Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel is GRANTED.  Moving party is to submit a completed proposed order (MC-053) for court signature and entry should there be no request for oral argument on the hearing date.  It is SO ORDERED.

5.         25FL02610, Popov v Popoff

Motion to Vacate Order for Attorney’s Fees DENIED.

Motion to Set aside/modify tentative ruling of June 5, 2026 DENIED.

Attorney’s fees and costs of $2,100 awarded to the opposing party.

Facts

            Petitioner filed this action with a request for Domestic Violence Restraining Order (“DVRO”) against Respondent on December 18, 2025.  The parties have several children together but the children were all adults before Petitioner filed this action.  Respondent filed his own request for DVRO in response. 

            After the trial on both requests concluded on April 22, 2026, the court granted Petitioner’s DVRO request and denied Respondent’s request.  It set the matter for a hearing of June 5, 2026 regarding Petitioner’s request for attorney’s fees, directing her to file the moving papers for the fees motion by May 1, 2026.  Petitioner filed her fees motion on May 1, 2026.  On May 4, 2026, Respondent filed a declaration in support of a request for a statement of decision.  He filed his response to Petitioner’s motion for attorney’s fees on May 8, 2026.  The court issued a tentative ruling on the motion before the hearing.  No party appeared for the hearing or opposed the tentative ruling, which the court subsequently adopted as its order (the “Fees Order”).  In the Fees Order, the court granted Petitioner’s motion for attorney’s fees based on Family Code section 6344.   The court found that under that provision it is not required to consider the relative financial circumstances or needs of the parties, only whether the party against whom the order is sought has the ability to pay.  It found that Respondent had the ability to pay.  

Motion

            This matter is now on calendar for Respondent’s Request for Order (“RFO”) and Motion to Vacate Order for Attorney’s Fees and his RFO and Motion to Set aside/modify tentative ruling of June 5, 2026.  Both motions challenge the Fees Order and primarily seek essentially the same result, as far as the court is able to determine, but they present different discussions and authority.  In the Motion to Vacate Order for Attorney’s Fees, Respondent relies on Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) section 632 and California Rule of Court (“CRC”) 3.1590 regarding requests for statement of decision.  He contends that issuing the Fees Order was premature given that the court has not yet issued the requested statement of decision.  In his Motion to Set aside/modify tentative ruling of June 5, 2026, Respondent asks for “reconsideration” of the Fees Order, arguing that the court used inaccurate financial information and claims that there is “new evidence” in the form of a June 1, 2026 denial of required security clearance needed to work at the FIFA World Cup event.

            Petitioner opposes the motion.  She argues that she is entitled to the award by statute, need or comparative financial standing are not part of the analysis, the absence of a statement of decision is immaterial, and Respondent has provided no basis for vacating the order.

Applicable Authority

According to the Family Law Rules of the California Rules of Court (“CRC”) 5.2(d), and Family Code (“Fam. Code”) section 210, provisions applicable to civil actions generally apply to proceedings under the Family Code unless otherwise provided.  This includes the rules applicable to civil actions in the California Rules of Court and the Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”).  See, e.g., In re Marriage of Boblitt (2014) 223 Cal.App. 4th 1004, at 1022 (discovery); In re Marriage of Zimmerman (2 Dist. 2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 900, at 910-911 (discussing the applicability of Code of Civil Procedure section 473 when a party seeks relief from orders in family  proceedings).

Fam. Code section 6344

Fam. Code section 6344 governs requests for attorney’s fees and costs on petitions for domestic violence protective orders or restraining orders under the Domestic Violence Prevention Act (“DVPA”) at Fam. Code section 6200, et seq.  It states, in pertinent part,

(a) After notice and a hearing, a court, upon request, shall issue an order for the payment of attorney’s fees and costs for a prevailing petitioner.

…

(c) Before a court awards attorney's fees and costs pursuant to this section, the court shall first determine pursuant to Section 270 that the party ordered to pay has, or is reasonably likely to have, the ability to pay.

Motions to Vacate

CCP section 473(b) allows parties to move the court to set aside dismissals or defaults.  This motion must normally be made within a reasonable time, not to exceed 6 months from the date the order was entered.  CCP section 473(b).  The motion must be brought within 6 months and the grounds for seeking the relief do not affect the deadline.  Arambula v. Union Carbide Corp. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4^th 333, 345.   The court may grant relief “upon any terms as may be just.”  CCP section 473(b).

An order setting aside the default is discretionary where based on mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.  CCP section 473(b).

There is also a policy in favor of hearing cases on their merits and the motion to vacate should be granted if the moving party shows a credible, excusable explanation.  Elston v. City of Turlock (1985) 38 Cal.3d 227.  The provision of this section authorizing court to relieve party from a judgment or order resulting from mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect is remedial in its nature and is to be liberally construed so as to dispose of cases on their merits.  Ramsey Trucking Co. v. Mitchell (1961) 188 Cal.App.2d Supp. 862.

            Aside from a default where defendant fails to answer in time, a party may move to set aside an order that is the “procedural equivalent of a default,” and which deprives a party of his or her day in court.  Leader v. Health Industries of America, Inc. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 603, 618.  It therefore applies to dismissal for failure attend a hearing or to oppose a motion to dismiss based on failure to prosecute.  Graham v. Beers (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 1656, 1661; Peltier v. McCloud River R.R.Co. (1995) 34 Cal.App.4th 1809, 1817-1819.  However, this does not apply to orders where the party seeks relief because of conduct other than failing to oppose a matter, such as dismissal resulting from delaying service of summons, after a demurrer was sustained with leave to amend, or a lapse in the statute of limitations.  Gotschall v. Daley (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 479, 483-484; see also Graham, supra, 1661.

Reconsideration

A party seeking reconsideration must first demonstrate new facts, law, or circumstances that were not previously considered.  CCP section 1008(a); Garcia v. Hejmadi (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 674, 692.  The moving party must also provide an adequate explanation why the new information was not provided earlier.  Garcia, supra; Gilberd v. AC Transit (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 1494, 1500.  The need for an explanation is a requirement for due diligence.  Gilberd.       

Mere lack of a chance to make oral argument is not a valid basis for a motion for reconsideration.  Garcia, 691; Gilberd, 1500.  In addition, decisions such as Film Packages, Inc. v. Brandywine Film Productions, Ltd. (1987) 193 Cal.App.3d 824, at 829, and Pender v. Radin (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 1807, at 1811-1812, indicate that evidence may be “new” where it has since obtained through discovery and could not reasonably have been provided earlier.

Failure to Contest a Tentative Ruling

Failure to contest a tentative ruling waives the right to challenge it.  Porterville Citizens for Responsible Hillside Development v. City of Porterville (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 885, 912.  Ad the court explained in Porterville Citizens, “It is axiomatic that a party may not complain on appeal of rulings to which it acquiesced in the lower court,” and “when a trial court announces a tentative decision, a party who failed to bring any deficiencies or omissions therein to the trial court's attention forfeits the right to raise such defects or omissions on appeal.”

Statement of Decision

CCP section 632 governs statements of decision.  It sets forth the procedure for requesting one and governs the content.  It states, in full,

(a) In superior courts, upon the trial of a question of fact by the court, written findings of fact and conclusions of law shall not be required. The court shall issue a statement of decision explaining the factual and legal basis for its decision as to each of the principal controverted issues at trial upon the request of any party appearing at the trial. The request must be made within 10 days after the court announces a tentative decision unless the trial is concluded within one calendar day or in less than eight hours over more than one day in which event the request must be made prior to the submission of the matter for decision. The request for a statement of decision shall specify those controverted issues as to which the party is requesting a statement of decision. After a party has requested the statement, any party may make proposals as to the content of the statement of decision.

(b) The statement of decision shall be in writing, unless the parties appearing at trial agree otherwise; however, when the trial is concluded within one calendar day or in less than 8 hours over more than one day, the statement of decision may be made orally on the record in the presence of the parties.

(c) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2027, and as of that date is repealed.

CRC 3.1590 also governs the announcement and service of a statement of decision and the procedures for doing so as well as for entering a final statement of decision and judgment. It also sets forth rules for requesting, preparing, objecting to, and finalizing a statement of decision. 

Discussion

Vacating the Order

            Although Respondent does not discuss the law or standards for vacating an order under CCP section 473, the court finds it appropriate to address briefly such a request given the nature of the motions and the fact that Respondent refers to one as a motion to vacate.

            The authority governing such a motion is not applicable to this situation because Respondent clearly had sufficient notice of the for attorney’s fees and in fact opposed the motion on the merits.  He offers no facts or explanation which could support relief under this provision.  For example, not only does the record clearly show notice, opportunity to oppose the motion, and actual opposition, but he makes no effort event to claim that he was unable to oppose the motion or appear at the hearing for any reason whatsoever, much less one that could support relief based on this provision. 

Effect of Failing to Challenge the Tentative Ruling

            Respondent did not challenge the tentative ruling which the court adopted as the Fees Order and he did not appear at the hearing to oppose it or address it in any way.  As explained above therefore, he has forfeited his right to challenge it now.  He offers no explanation for the failure to challenge it at the hearing.

Reconsideration

            Respondent’s argument for reconsideration is unpersuasive even if had had not forfeited the right to challenge the tentative ruling.  The only point which he claims amounts to “new” facts, law, or circumstances is that fact the on June 1, 2026 he was denied the security clearance needed to work at the FIFA World Cup event.  Without more information or explanation, this is insufficient.  First, it is not “new” because it occurred prior to the court posting the tentative ruling and before the hearing at which the court made the Fees Order.  He does not explain how it could be new when he had the opportunity to raise it at the hearing but failed to do so.  Second, he does not demonstrate that this would affect the outcome.  This job opportunity was a temporary one which would by now have been concluded, anyway, and he fails to demonstrate the potential income lost.  He also fails to show that the court based the Fees Order on this specific potential employment and the Fees Order makes no mention of it in its analysis of his ability to pay.  Rather, the court explains that Respondent had provided “woefully incomplete” financial information since it failed to include or detail has salary history, past salary, or current salary.  It found that he had sufficient income to pay for the fees in addition to his stated monthly expenses.  He otherwise only revisits evidence and arguments which had already been presented for the fees motion prior to the court’s ruling. 

Statement of Decision

Respondent also fails to explain how the Fees Order is invalid or legally “premature” because the court heard the motion and issued the order before issuing a statement of decision on the underlying DVRO requests.  He provides no legal or factual support or analysis whatsoever in support of this argument.  The court is aware of nothing in the authority governing requests for statements of decision which supports his argument.  CCP section 632 and CRC 3.1590 set forth rules for requesting, preparing, objecting to, and finalizing a statement of decision.  Neither provides any indication that a court may not reach other issues, such as attorney’s fees, resulting from the underlying decision prior to the completion of a statement of decision. 

Conclusion: Substance of Respondent’s Motions

For the reasons set forth above, the court DENIES the motions.  

Additional Fees and Costs

            In her opposition, Petitioner asks the court to award additional attorney’s fees and costs of $3,325 pursuant to Fam.Code section 6344.  As noted above, a prevailing petitioner seeking a DVRO is entitled as a matter of right to an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.  In a part of the opposition, she gives the amount as $3,150, but that is an incorrect calculation in light of the hours spent, as set forth below. 

            Petitioner presents the evidence in support of the request in the declaration of her attorney, Svetlana Rishina (“Rishina”), filed with the opposition.  This asserts that Rishina spent 3 hours on legal research, 2 hours reviewing the case and files, 2.5 hours preparing the opposition memorandum, 1.5 hours preparing the declaration and supporting documents, and 0.5 hour preparing required forms, for a total of 9.5 hours at $350 an hour.  The rate is reasonable, but the time and total fees claimed appear to be somewhat unreasonable for this simple, straightforward matter.  Both the total time of 5 hours for research and review, as well as the time of 4.5 hours for actually preparing these papers, appear to the court facially unreasonable, albeit not by a huge amount.  The fact that the amount sought for this opposition is about one third that awarded for the underlying DVRO request, opposition to Respondent’s DVRO, and the trial, underscores the impression that the amount claimed here is unreasonably inflated.  In the absence of other evidence or explanation, the court finds; 3 hours for the research and review as well as 3 hours for actually preparing the documents to be facially reasonable.  This results in a total of 6 hours, and attorney’s fees of $2,100.  The court AWARDS this amount.

Conclusion

            The court DENIES the motions and award to the opposing party, Petitioner, attorney’s fees and costs of $2,100.  The prevailing party shall prepare and serve a proposed order consistent with this tentative ruling within five days of the date set for argument of this matter. Opposing party shall inform the preparing party of objections as to form, if any, or whether the form of order is approved, within five days of receipt of the proposed order. The preparing party shall submit the proposed order and any objections to the court in accordance with California Rules of Court, Rule 5.125.

            It is SO ORDERED.

           

**This is the end of the Tentative Rulings.***