Family Law Tentative Rulings - Courtroom 20

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)-521-6836 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: 026215

To appear via Zoom by phone:

• Call: +1 669-254-5252
• Enter the Meeting ID: 161-271-2563
• Passcode: 026215

FOR ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTS - PLEASE CALL THE COVERING JUDICIAL ASSISTANT AT (707) 521-6729. 

1. SFL090092, Huls Dissolution

Respondent’s motion to bifurcate and terminate marital status is DENIED without prejudice because Respondent failed to include the mandatory form FL-315 Request or Response to Request for Separate Trial with his motion. Respondent can refile his motion with all the required pleadings included and the Court will consider his request at that time.

2. 24FL00193, Curley Dissolution

The Court is aware of responsive pleadings and reply and/or supplemental pleadings which were filed late by both Mark Edward Curley (special administrator of the Estate of Stephen Jon Curley) and Respondent, respectively.  Given the very late filing of both sets of the pleadings, this matter is being CONTINUED to the law and motion calendar of November 6, 2026, in Department 20 at 9:30 a.m.

3. SFL094089, Jones Dissolution

Motion Request for Order to Compel Discovery Responses & Final Decl. of Disclosure; Sanctions is CONTINUED to the law and motion calendar of November 6, 2026, in Department 20 at 9:30 a.m. because there is insufficient proof of service.  Prior to the new hearing, the moving party must file timely proof of service in accord with California Rule of Court 3.1300, demonstrating service of notice of the hearing. 

Facts

            Petitioner filed this action for dissolution of marriage with a minor child (the “Child”) on July 25, 2023.  The parties entered into a stipulation, entered as an order on September 25, 2024, by which they agreed, among other things, that Respondent would pay Petitioner specified child support and spousal support, and the parties would take part in coparent counseling. 

            The parties also both filed motions to enforce a memorandum of understanding (“MOU”) which they claim they entered into regarding various issues.  At a hearing on June 16, 2026, the parties stipulated that they entered into the MOU and that it should be entered as the order of the court. The court thereupon adopted it and entered it as a court order.  The MOU covers numerous issues but leaves spousal support reserved and unresolved.  In addition, Respondent has a continuing child-support obligation to Petitioner.   

Discovery

            Petitioner served Respondent with a preliminary declaration of disclosure (“PDD”) on April 18, 2024, filing his FL-141 Declaration regarding service of the PDD on July 10, 2024.  Petitioner served Respondent on July 30, 2026, with his final declaration of disclosure (“FDD”), FL-142 updated schedule of assets and debts (“Schedule”), FL-150 current income and expense declaration (“IED”), and statement of facts and information required in Family Code section 2105.  Declaration of Wallace Francis (“Francis Dec.”) attached to Request for Order to Compel Discovery Responses & Final Decl. of Disclosure; Sanctions, ¶2.  Respondent has not served either a PDD or an FDD.  Id., ¶3.  On December 5, 2025, Petitioner served Form Interrogatories Family Law (FL-145), with responses due January 7, 2026.  Id., ¶4.  Respondent failed to serve any responses by the deadline, so Petitioner sent a meet-and-confer message on January 14, 2026, notifying her that the responses were overdue and objections were waived but Respondent replied that she had not received the interrogatories.  Id., ¶¶4-5.  Petitioner reserved them that same day and Respondent said that she would respond promptly.  Id., ¶5.  In court on January 26, 2026, Respondent stated that she had prepared a response and that she had it, but refused to provide it and instead on February 2, 2026, she e-mailed unverified responses.  Id., ¶¶6-7.  Petitioner sent a message the next day advising Respondent of the defect and then, on April 17, 2026, served a detailed demand for responses with a deadline of April 24, 2026, after which Respondent produced only some documents without providing verified responses or a completed FL-142 Schedule.  Id., ¶¶8-9.  Petitioner filed a motion to compel responses but dropped it in May 2026 after the court continued the trial to September 2026, to give more time to resolve the matter informally.  Petitioner gave Respondent a new deadline of June 15, 2026, for discovery responses as well as to provide an FDD, Fl-142 Schedule, FL-150 IED, and statement of facts required in Family Code section 2105, as he requested.  Id., ¶¶10-12.  Respondent still failed to comply and has served no verified responses, no FDD, no IED, and only one incomplete Schedule in October 2024.  Id., ¶¶10-12. 

Motion

            Petitioner moves the court to compel Respondent to serve verified responses to the interrogatories, without objection, as well as an FDD, Fl-142 Schedule, FL-150 IED, and statement of facts required in Family Code section 2105.  He also seeks an order under Family Code section 2107(b) precluding Respondent from introducing at trial any evidence which she failed to disclose if she does not comply.  Finally, he requests sanctions for attorney’s fees and costs in the amount of $15,618.84, plus any additional amount incurred through the hearing.  He contends that the financial issues which these documents cover go to the core unresolved issues which are the subject of the upcoming trial, including Respondent’s income and ability to pay spousal support. 

            There is no opposition.

Applicable Authority

            According to the Family Law Rules of the California Rules of Court (“CRC”) 5.2(d), and Family 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 (“CRC”) and the Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”).  See, e.g., In re Marriage of Boblitt (2014) 223 Cal.App. 4th 1004, at 1022 (discovery).

            The governing law requires disclosure of income and expenses, as well as assets.  Fam.Code sections 2100-2107; Marriage of Feldman (2007) 153 Cal.App. 4th 1470, 1476-1477. 

Unless excused, parties in actions under the Family Code must provide preliminary and final declarations of disclosure meeting the requirements set forth in Fam. Code sections 2103, 2104, and 2105.  If a party fails to provide a disclosure or the required information, the other party may request compliance and, if the party still fails to comply, may then bring a motion to compel.  Fam. Code section 2107.  Section 2103 states, in pertinent part and with emphasis added,

In order to provide full and accurate disclosure of all assets and liabilities in which one or both parties may have an interest, each party… shall serve… a preliminary declaration of disclosure under Section 2104, unless service of the preliminary declaration of disclosure is waived… or is not required pursuant to Section 2110, and a final declaration of disclosure under Section 2105, unless service of the final declaration of disclosure is waived pursuant to Section 2105, 2107, or 2110, and shall file proof of service of each with the court.

Fam. Code section 2105 specifically covers FDDs and subdivision (b) lists specific information which it must include. 

            Fam. Code section 2107 governs the failure to comply with the requirements for preliminary declarations of disclosure set forth in section 2104 or final declarations of disclosure as set forth in section 2105.  It states that where one party has complied and the other has not, the complying party may, within a reasonable time, request preparation of such a declaration and, if the other party still fails to comply, may file a motion either to compel compliance, or for an order preventing the noncomplying party from presenting evidence on issues that should have been covered in the declaration of disclosure, showing good cause for the court to grant the complying party’s voluntary waiver of receipt of the noncomplying party’s declaration of disclosure.  According to subdivision (c), in addition to other remedies where a party fails to comply with disclosure requirements, the court “shall… impose money sanctions against the noncomplying party. Sanctions shall be in an amount sufficient to deter repetition of the conduct or comparable conduct, and shall include reasonable attorney’s fees, costs incurred, or both, unless the court finds that the noncomplying party acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.”

Discovery of financial information is inherently directly relevant and appropriate in family law litigation involving disputes over financial matters such as income, assets, debts, and support.  See, e.g., Fam.Code sections 2100, 2100, 2120; Marriage of Feldman (2007) 153 Cal.App. 4th 1470, 1476-1477; CRC 5.92.  In family law disputes, Fam.Code sections 2100 and 2120(a) expressly codify public policy requiring full and accurate disclosure of assets, liabilities, income and expenses to ensure a proper division of the community estate and “fair and sufficient” child and spousal support awards.  As a result, there is inherently and expressly a “compelling public interest” in discovery of such information which overcomes each party’s right to privacy in their personal financial information.  See, e.g., Schnabel v. Sup.Ct. (1993) 5 Cal.4th 704, 711; City of Los Angeles v. Sup.Ct. (2003) 111 Cal.App. 4th 883, 894-896 (disapproved on other grounds by International Federation of Prof. & Technical Engineers, Local 21, AFL-CIO v. Sup.Ct. (2007) 42 Cal.4th 319, 345) (stating that privacy rights granted peace officers over their personnel records give way to Family Code requirements of full financial disclosure during marital dissolution proceedings between peace officer and spouse.

Service and Notice

There are two proofs of service which appear to show service of the filed motion and notice of the hearing date.  However, both proofs of service show only electronic service and Respondent is self-represented.  Electronic service on a self-represented party is not sufficient absent an affirmative consent to such service.  CRC 2.251(c)(3)(B); CCP section 1010.6.  The court is not aware of such an agreement.  The proofs of service also do not show service to Respondent’s e-mail address of record, which is teamjones2013@gmail.com.  Petitioner served martinezni2024@gmail.com.  The court is aware that Respondent has herself filed proof of electronic service on Petitioner giving martinezni2024@gmail.com as her e-mail address, but it is not her e-mail address of record.   The moving party has therefore failed to file complete proof of service.  Proof of service for a motion must be filed at least 5 court days prior to the hearing.  California Rule of Court (“CRC”) 3.1300(c).

            Accordingly, the court must CONTINUE the motion.

Discussion

            Substantively, the motion is persuasive.  Petitioner shows that he served the interrogatories, Respondent acknowledged receiving them and that she would respond, and that Respondent has failed to serve verified responses, even though the deadline has long since passed and Petitioner gave Respondent several opportunities to comply.  Respondent served only untimely, unverified responses.  Any objections are waived and unverified substantive responses are, as explained above, the equivalent of no response at all.  Petitioner also shows that he served his FDD and other current financial information, but that Respondent has failed to do so despite Petitioner’s requests.  If the court finds there to be sufficient service and therefore considers the merits of the motion, the court will grant the motion in full as to compelling the responses and required financial documents.

Sanctions

            Petitioner also seeks monetary sanctions for attorney’s fees and costs in the amount of $15,618.84, plus any additional amount incurred through the hearing, pursuant to Fam. Code sections 271 and 2107(c) as well as CCP sections 2030.290(c) and 2023.030. 

            As noted above, Fam. Code section 2107(c) states that, in addition to other remedies, the court “shall… impose money sanctions against the noncomplying party. Sanctions shall be in an amount sufficient to deter repetition of the conduct or comparable conduct, and shall include reasonable attorney’s fees, costs incurred, or both, unless the court finds that the noncomplying party acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.”

For compelling responses to interrogatories, the court shall impose monetary sanctions on the losing party unless that party acted with substantial justification, or other circumstances make sanctions unjust.  CCP sections 2023.010, 2023.030, 2030.290. A party may seek relief from sanctions due to mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect if it has served responses.  CCP section 2030.290(a).             

In order to obtain sanctions, the moving party must request sanctions in the notice of motion, identify against whom the party seeks the sanctions, and specify the kind of sanctions.  CCP section 2023.040.  The sanctions are limited to the “reasonable expenses” related to the motion.  Ghanooni v. Super Shuttle of Los Angeles (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 256, 262. 

            Finally, Fam. Code section 271 broadly authorizes the court to make an award of attorney’s fees and costs “in the nature of a sanction,” and “[n]otwithstanding any other provision of this code,” based on “the extent to which the conduct of each party or attorney furthers or frustrates the policy of the law to promote settlement of litigation and, where possible, to reduce the cost of litigation by encouraging cooperation between the parties and attorneys.”  The party requesting an award of attorney’s fees and costs on this basis is not required to demonstrate any financial need for the award.

Petitioner demonstrates that he is entitled to monetary sanctions under all three of the above grounds, but he fails to provide support for the amount sought.  He seeks $15,618.84, which on its face is far more than this simple motion could warrant, even including the additional time spent meeting and conferring and attempting to obtain responses through informal means.  Petitioner claims that his attorney has spent 38.5 hours at $400 an hour and he anticipates an additional $9,000 in fees and costs.  Francis Dec., ¶¶14-15.  However, he does not detail the time spent and the declaration indicates that the time includes work spent addressing Respondent’s issues regarding support and other unspecified “resulting motion practice,” while the time anticipated includes preparing for, and handling the upcoming trial.  Petitioner also presents neither explanation nor factual basis for sanctions related to other issues.  Such expenses are outside the scope of this motion, the sanctions of which are limited to the expenses specific to this motion.  Should Petitioner seek other sanctions, he must file a noticed motion for those sanctions and provide legal and factual analysis supporting them.

If the court grants the motion, the court will only award sanctions in favor of Petitioner for the attorney’s fees and costs which Petitioner demonstrates he has reasonably and actually incurred for the subject matter of this motion only.  This will be limited to work preparing this motion and informal efforts to resolve the issues of discovery and service of financial documents.  Petitioner must provide evidence and explanation to support this amount.  The court will not include in any sanctions award the additional expense incurred in demonstrating the basis for the sanctions sought.  The decision is without prejudice to Petitioner seeking sanctions for other expenses which this court has indicated are outside the scope of the discovery issues which are the subject of this motion.   

Conclusion

            The court CONTINUES the motion as explained above.