Family Law Tentative Rulings
Law & Motion Calendar
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. 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:
- https://sonomacourt-org.zoomgov.com/j/1616468743
- Passcode: 026215
To appear via Zoom by phone:
- Call: +1 669 254 5252
- Meeting ID: 161 646 8743
- Passcode: 026215
Law & Motion Tentative Rulings
April 12, 2024, at 9:30 a.m.
SFL081010 PETERSEN/CADENA DISSOLUTION
TENTATIVE RULING:
Appearances are required.
It is SO ORDERED.
SFL-090617 MILLS/MILLS DISSOLUTION
TENTATIVE RULING:
Attorney for Petitioner’s Motion to Withdraw is GRANTED.
On March 14, 2024, Attorney for Petitioner filed this Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel. Petitioner and Respondent were properly noticed of this request. (Declaration of Attorney). This motion is unopposed by Respondent.
Accordingly, the Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel is GRANTED. Moving party submitted the appropriate proposed order (MC-053) which the court shall sign and file should there be no request for oral argument on the hearing date.
It is SO ORDERED.
SFL-090704 MAKOEC/MAKOVEC DISSOLUTION
TENTATIVE RULING:
Motion to Compel and to Enforce Order GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, as explained below. The motion is GRANTED as to compelling written discovery responses and monetary sanctions but is DENIED without prejudice as to enforcing the stipulation.
Facts
Petitioner filed this action for dissolution of marriage without minor children on April 1, 2022, and Respondent filed her response on April 14, 2022.
In April, 2023, the parties entered into a written Stipulation and Order Regarding Spousal Support and Attorney’s Fees, filed on April 12, 2023.
On October 31, 2023, Respondent electronically served Petitioner with a Request for Production of Documents, Set Two (“RFPs”), and claims that responses were due by November 30, 2023, but no responses had been received by January 24, 2024, even though she sent a meet-and-confer letter on December 11, 2023. Abea Dec.
Motion
Respondent moves the court to compel Petitioner to respond to the RFPs and she seeks monetary sanctions of $500. She also moves the court to enforce the Stipulation and Order Regarding Spousal Support and Attorney’s Fees filed April 12, 2023 (the “Stipulation”) and for an award of $2,100 in attorney’s fees for needing to bring this motion. She argues that per the Stipulation, Petitioner is required to pay her $7,000 once the taxes for 2022 are settled, and that this has occurred.
Petitioner opposes the motion. Providing what appears to be a copy of proposed written responses, he asks for an extension of time in which to provide the documents and asserts that he has been unable to obtain all of the requested documents but is attempting to do so. He also asserts that the triggering event for paying the money has not yet occurred because the taxes are not settled.
Compelling Responses
According to the Family Law Rules of the California Rules of Court (“CRC”) 5.2(d), and Family Code § 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”), and specifically the Civil Discovery Act set forth at CCP § 2016.010, et seq. See also, In re Marriage of Boblitt (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 1004, at 1022.
Where a party seeks to compel responses under CCP § 2031.300, the moving party need only demonstrate that the discovery was served, the time to respond has expired, and the responding party failed to provide a timely response. See Leach v. Sup.Ct. (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 905-906; Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 411. Failure to provide a timely response waives all objections. CCP §2031.300. There is no meet-and-confer requirement or a deadline for a motion to compel response where none has been made. CCP § 2031.300. Where a party has failed to respond on time to a request for production, the first step is not to compel production but to compel a response. CCP § 2031.300.
The responding party must verify substantive responses. CCP § 2031.250. Where a response is unverified, the response is ineffective and is the equivalent of no response at all. See Appleton v Sup.Ct. (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636.
The normal statutory time to respond is 30 days but CCP § 1013(g) allows electronic service in accord with CCP § 1010.6. Section 1010.6(a)(3) currently allows electronic service as a standard form of service for any document which may be “served by mail, express mail, overnight delivery, or facsimile transmission,” and it extends by two days any deadline for an action based on service, aside from specific exceptions not applicable here.
Respondent demonstrates that she served Petitioner with the RFPs and that Petitioner has failed to provide any response even though the deadline expired in November 2023. The court notes that Respondent is incorrect that the deadline for responding was November 20, 2023, because that was exactly 30 days following service and the electronic service, in accord with CCP §1010.6(a)(3), extended the deadline by two days. Nonetheless, the deadline for responding still expired in the beginning of November and Petitioner has failed to comply.
Petitioner provides a copy of what appears to be proposed written responses and these appear to lack any objections, which have been waived. However, Petitioner provides no clear evidence or explanation as to this exhibit and does not indicate whether he has in fact already served this document. He claims that he has been attempting to obtain the documents but this does not excuse the complete failure, after several months, to provide any written response at the very least and is not a basis on which to deny this motion at this time.
The court GRANTS the motion. Petitioner must serve Respondent with written responses within 10 days of service of notice of entry of this order.
Discovery Sanctions
For compelling responses to production requests, the court shall impose monetary sanctions on the losing party unless that party acted with substantial justification, or other circumstances make sanctions unjust. CCP §§2023.010, 2023.030, 2031.300. A party may seek relief from sanctions due to mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect if it has served responses. CCP §§2031.300(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 § 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.
In discovery, the court may impose monetary sanctions against the party, person, or attorney. CCP § 2023.030(a). The court may impose the sanctions against a party’s counsel if it appears that the counsel was at least partly responsible for engaging in the behavior at issue. CCP § 2023.030(a); Ghanooni v. Super Shuttle (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 256, 261.
Respondent properly seeks monetary sanctions here. She requests $500 based on attorney rate of $350 an hour and paralegal rate of $250 an hour, (Abea Dec.) The amount is reasonable.
Petitioner claims that he has been trying to obtain the documents requested but this does not explain or excuse the complete failure to provide written responses for several months after the deadline, and after the moving party sent a meet-and-confer letter on December 11, 2023. Respondent was still forced to bring this motion and only now, apparently, has Petitioner made any effort to provide responses, signed on February 27, 2024, and he still has not demonstrated that he has actually served them. Although Petitioner may be able to obtain relief from the sanctions, his opposition fails to demonstrate substantial justification or any other such basis.
The court AWARDS to Respondent, against Petitioner, sanctions of $500. Because the motion only asks for the sanctions to be imposed on Petitioner, and does not mention the attorney, the award is against Petitioner alone and not his attorney.
Enforcing the Stipulation
In addition to the discovery, Respondent moves the court to enforce the parties’ stipulation pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) §664.6.
When a party seeks to enforce a stipulated settlement entered in writing or orally before the court, the court “may enter judgment pursuant to the terms of the settlement.” CCP §664.6. This gives the court discretion. In addition, when ruling on a CCP §664.6 motion, the court is a trier of fact and its ruling will be upheld if based on “substantial evidence.” Fiore v. Alvord (1985) 182 Cal.App.3d 561, 566.
The court in Weddington Productions, Inc. v. Flick (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 793, at 797 emphasized that before “judgment can be entered, two key prerequisites must be satisfied.” These are contract formation and a writing signed by the parties with the material terms. Id. As with other contracts, if there is no meeting of the minds on the material terms, then no contract has been formed. Id., 797. Absent such a contract, there is no settlement agreement which the court may enforce. Id. The agreement must be signed in writing or entered into orally before the court in order for a party to enforce it under § 664.6. Weddington, supra, 809-810.
Respondent claims that Petitioner has violated the provision of the Stipulation requiring him to pay $7,000 of a $70,000 payment once their 2022 taxes were settled and completed. She attaches a copy of the Stipulation as Exhibit “A” and it is in the court record as well. The provision on which she relies states, in pertinent part, that Petitioner shall hold back the $7,000 payment “until such time as the parties have settled their tax filings for tax year 2022. Once any issues related to the filing and payment of taxes for tax year 2022 has [sic] been finalized, Husband shall immediately distribute the held back $7,000 or any amount remaining of that $7,000 after tax year 2022 issues are resolved.”
Respondent claims that on October 24, 2023, Petitioner sent her a text stating that he had filed the 2022 taxes and that they “came out even so I still OU $7000 do you want to meet” [sic], but when she replied asking “Can you send it to me?” he merely responded “Send you what,” “Who is this,” “I hope your happy” [sic] and has not communicated since. Abea Dec., ¶4, Ex. B.
Respondent’s evidence does not support her motion. Fundamentally, she presents no admissible evidence to support her claim. She provides only the declaration of her attorney. On the face of the evidence, the attorney has no personal knowledge necessary for the assertions about the communications or to authenticate, or lay a foundation for, the proffered exhibit. This is facially not admissible evidence. Even if it were admissible, the evidence itself is also not entirely clear. It is vague and does not clearly or persuasively demonstrate that the condition triggering the payment, as set forth in the Stipulation, has in fact occurred.
In his responsive declaration, Petitioner states that the “[t]ax issues for marital estate are not settled so distribution of held-back funds is premature.” Responsive Dec.,¶10.
The motion as to the request to enforce the Stipulation is DENIED without prejudice to Respondent again seeking this relief upon a proper showing. Because the court denies the motion, it also denies the request for attorney’s fees and costs for this portion of the motion.
Conclusion
As explained above, the court GRANTS the motion as to compelling written discovery responses and monetary sanctions, but DENIES without prejudice the motion as to enforcing the Stipulation. The moving 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 3.1312.
It is SO ORDERED.
SFL-091718 LOPEZ MEZA v. MONDRAGON SANCHEZ
TENTATIVE RULING:
Appearances are required.
It is SO ORDERED.