Family Law 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) 521-6836 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 JOIN “ZOOM” ONLINE,

D21 – Family Law – Law & Motion Calendar

• MeetingID: 160 223 6856
• Password: 876992
• https://sonomacourt-org.zoomgov.com/j/1602236856

TO JOIN “ZOOM” BY PHONE,

• Call 1 669 254 5252 (same meeting ID and password as listed above)

TENTATIVE RULINGS

LAW & MOTION CALENDAR

Thursday, June 5, 2025 9:00 a.m.

Courtroom 21 –Hon. Kinna Patel Crocker

3055 Cleveland Avenue, Santa Rosa CA 95403

TO JOIN “ZOOM” ONLINE:

Meeting ID: 160-223-6856

Passcode: 876992

https://sonomacourt-org.zoomgov.com/j/1602236856

TO JOIN “ZOOM” BY PHONE:

By Phone (same meeting ID and password as listed above):

(669) 254-5252

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 - 6836 by 4:00 p.m. on the day before the hearing. Any party requesting an appearance must notify all other opposing parties/counsel of their intent to appear.

1. 24FL00766, Corona-Leyva v Garcia Miranda
   MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY AND SANCTIONS IS GRANTED IN PART, DENIED IN PART AND CONTINUED WITH RESPECT TO INTERROGATORIES, TO July 17, 2025 at 9am.

Facts

            Petitioner filed this action for dissolution of marriage with minor child on April 15, 2024.  Since then, the parties have continued to litigate over numerous issues, including custody, visitation, and the Domestic Violence Temporary Restraining Orders (“DVTROs”) which Respondent obtained against Petitioner.  Petitioner is currently self-represented, his previous attorney having substituted out on December 12, 2024.  Respondent is currently represented by counsel, who substituted in to represent her on December 16, 2024, after her prior attorney substituted out on December 10, 2024.

Discovery

            When his prior attorney was still representing him, Petitioner served Respondent on September 16, 2024 with Request for Production of Documents, Set One, and Form Interrogatories, Set One; responses were due on October 18, 2024 but Respondent failed to respond on time, serving late responses, with objections, on November 6, 2024; Petitioner found the responses to be deficient and his attorney met and conferred with Respondent’s attorney regarding the issues; Respondent, however, failed to provide amended responses or the requested documents.

            Petitioner filed Motion to Compel Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One, and Form Interrogatories, Set One; Request for Sanctions (the “Motion to Compel”) on December 18, 2024.  It was originally set for hearing on January 24, 2025, but it and other hearings in this action were continued due to the recusal of the prior judicial officer.  The Motion to Compel was ultimately rescheduled to May 1, 2025.  At the hearing on May 1, 2025, the court continued the motion to June 5, 2025 in order to allow further briefing because no party had provided a separate statement of items in dispute or provided complete clarity about the issues and nature of the motion.  The court noted that Petitioner had correctly argued that Respondent served responses late, thereby waiving all objections by failing to respond on time and Respondent admitted this.  However, it was not clear if Respondent, when she ultimately served responses, made any objections or what grounds there may have been for compelling further responses.  With respect to the continuance and authorization for the parties to submit additional papers, the court stated,

The court CONTINUES the motion to allow Petitioner to file and serve a complete separate statement in compliance with CRC 3.1345 for a motion to compel further responses pursuant to CCP sections 2030.300 and 2031.310, and to allow Respondent to file and serve a responsive separate statement.  No party is allowed to file any additional documents regarding this motion.  Petitioner must file and serve the separate statement at least 16 court days before the hearing.  Respondent must file and serve the responsive separate statement at least 9 court days before the hearing.

Motion

            In his continued Motion to Compel, Petitioner moves the court to compel Respondent to provide new responses, without objections, and to impose monetary sanctions on Respondent pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Discovery Act.  Pursuant to the court’s order continuing the motion from the prior hearing, Petitioner has now submitted a separate statement of items in dispute. 

            Respondent opposes the motion.  She argues that she did provide requested documents in a good-faith effort to comply with the discovery and she objects to Petitioner’s evidence.

            Petitioner has filed a reply.  He asserts that the opposition fails to address the fundamental issues of his motion, specifically her failure to respond to the discovery by the deadline with the result that she waived all objections.  He also contends that the declaration of Respondent’s former attorney goes beyond mere evidence and makes improper legal arguments, which also raises questions about her continued role in this matter.  

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”), and specifically proceedings pursuant to the Civil Discovery Act set forth at CCP section 2016.010, et seq.  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).

Where a party seeks to compel responses to interrogatories or a demand for inspection or production under CCP sections 2030.290 and 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 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.4^th 390, 411.  Failure to provide a timely response waives all objections.  CCP sections 2030.290, 2031.300.  There is no meet-and-confer requirement or a deadline for a motion to compel a response where none has been made. CCP sections 2030.290, 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, as with interrogatories, to compel a response.  CCP section 2031.300.

The responding party must verify substantive responses.  CCP section 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.

Under CRC 3.1345, in a motion to compel further responses, the moving party “must” provide a separate statement setting forth the items and responses in dispute verbatim along with an explanation as to why further responses are needed.   The court in Mills v. U.S. Bank (2008) 166 Cal.App.4^th 871, at 893, found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion to compel further responses because the separate statement failed to set forth the requests and responses verbatim.  See also Neary v. Regents of University of California (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 1136, 1145. 

A party has a duty to provide “complete” responses and to make them as straightforward as possible.  CCP sections 2030.220; 2031.210-2031.230.  Requests must be answered to the extent possible and an answer that contains only part of the information requested or which evades a meaningful response is improper.  Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 783. 

It is also not proper to respond by simply referring to other documents such as a deposition transcript.  Deyo, supra.  If a party does refer to other documents, it should generally also specify the source and summarize the information to make the response itself complete.  Ibid.  A responding party also has a duty to make a reasonable, good-faith effort to obtain the requested information and if it is unable to comply, it must state that it made a reasonable and diligent search.  CCP sections 2030.220 2031.230; Deyo, supra, 84 Cal.App.4th 783.

The Supplemental Papers

            Following the prior hearing, as noted, Petitioner filed and served a separate statement and Respondent filed and served a “Supplemental Declaration.”  To reiterate, in the prior order, the court stated, with emphasis added, that it was allowing Petitioner to file and serve a separate statement that it was allowing “Respondent to file and serve a responsive separate statement.”    It further specified, “No party is allowed to file any additional documents regarding this motion.  Petitioner must file and serve the separate statement at least 16 court days before the hearing.  Respondent must file and serve the responsive separate statement at least 9 court days before the hearing.”  Emphasis added.

            Petitioner’s separate statement is the specific document which the court authorized him to file, but he did not file and serve it by the deadline given.  This hearing is on June 5, 2025, so the 16-court-day deadline prior to the hearing was May 13, 2025.  Petitioner filed and served the document on May 19, 2025, four court days late.  Respondent’s new document does not comply with the court order in any fashion.  Her declaration is not a responsive separate statement, which is the only document which this court allowed her to file, and it lacks both the format and information which the separate statement would have provided.  It is also exceedingly untimely.  The nine-court-day deadline for the motion was May 22, 2025, making the declaration, filed and served on June 2, 2025, untimely by seven court days.  Ultimately, under these circumstances, the court is considering Petitioner’s separate statement but it is disregarding Respondent’s declaration on the basis that the court expressly authorized a specific document with specific information and that this document fails to comply in any manner with the court’s order.  The court also expressly stated that no party was allowed to file any other type of document.    

Requests for Admission

            Petitioner now shows that for the RFPs Respondent provided substantive responses without objections but argues that these are defective.  In response to RFPs 1, 5, 9, 17 she stated that she made a diligent search and that she no longer had such items in her possession, control, or custody.  This is a sufficient response.  In response to RFPs 2-4, 6-8, 10-16, she stated that she would produce all such documents in her possession, custody, or control, and that they were attached.  However, Petitioner notes that some responsive requested documents were not provided and the responses fail to indicate if the production is complete or that Respondent has made a diligent search, as she did with the other responses. 

            The court GRANTS the motion for compelling furth responses to RFPs 2-4, 6-8, 10-16, and DENIES the motion as to compelling further responses to RFPs 1, 5, 9, 17.

Interrogatories

            Petitioner likewise now shows that for the interrogatories, Respondent provided substantive responses without objections but argues that these are defective.  However, he fails to set forth the full required information, specifically the interrogatories verbatim. The court is thus unable to determine to what extent the responses fail to respond to the interrogatories. 

            The court CONTINUES the motion as to the interrogatories in order to allow for a complete and proper separate statement on this point. 

           

Sanctions

For compelling responses to interrogatories and 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, 2030.290, 2031.300.    With respect to requests for admission, the court shall still impose sanctions even if the responding party provides proper responses by the time of the hearing.  CCP §2033.280.

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.  However, the sanctions which self-represented litigants may recover is limited to out-of-pocket costs such as paying for legal research, copies, transportation, and the like.  Argaman v. Ratan (1999) 73 Cal.App.4^th 1173, 1179.

            The court DENIES the request for sanctions because Petitioner is not entitled to anything more than out-of-pocket costs and, in any case, the court finds that both parties acted partially with and partially without substantial justification.  The court will not revisit the issue of sanctions in the new hearing for this motion and considers the issue of sanctions for this motion to be resolved.

Conclusion

            The court CONTINUES the motion as set forth above as to the interrogatories.  Regarding the requests for production, as stated above, the court GRANTS the motion for compelling further responses to RFPs 2-4, 6-8, 10-16, and DENIES the motion as to compelling further responses to RFPs 1, 5, 9, 17.

            As with the prior order, Petitioner may file and serve a complete separate statement, regarding the interrogatories only, in compliance with CRC 3.1345 for a motion to compel further responses pursuant to CCP section 2030.300.  Respondent may file and serve a responsive separate statement subject to the same requirements and restrictions.  No party is allowed to file any different or additional documents regarding this motion and the court will not consider such documents.  Petitioner must file and serve the separate statement at least 16 court days before the hearing.  Respondent must file and serve the responsive separate statement at least 9 court days before the hearing.  The court will disregard any document which is not filed and served by the designated deadlines.    

2. SFL083058, Diaz v Diaz
   APPEARANCES REQUIRED.
    
3. SFL085943, Mitchell v. Kostick III

MOTION FOR BIFURCATION OF MARITAL STATUS GRANTED subject to Respondent submitting a proper and complete proposed FL-180 judgment.

Facts

            Petitioner filed this action for dissolution of marriage with two minor children (the “Children”) on June 9, 2020.  Following that, the parties conducted some litigation, including Respondent’s request for domestic violence restraining order (“DVRO”), as well as child custody and visitation, and Respondent was granted legal and physical custody of the Children.  However, the matter did not progress regarding the marriage or financial matters.  The County of Sonoma Department of Child Services (“DCSS”), providing support services to Respondent, intervened regarding Petitioner’s support obligations. 

            On July 13, 2023, Respondent filed his response to the petition.  Following that, the parties served income and expense declarations (“IEDs”) and preliminary declarations of disclosure (“PDDs”).  DCSS also filed its substitution of payee for Petitioner’s support obligations.    The parties entered into a mutual stipulation and waiver of final declarations of disclosure in September 2024.  Otherwise, no dispositive activity has occurred. 

Motion

            In his Request for Order (“RFO”) and Motion for Bifurcation of the Status of the Marriage, Respondent moves the court bifurcate the issue of the status of marriage from the other issues and to enter an order dissolving the marriage.  He notes that more than six months have elapsed since he filed his response and he wishes to have the marriage terminated as soon as possible. 

            There is no opposition. 

Applicable Law

            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 CCP section 473 when a party seeks relief from orders in family proceedings).           

             Marital dissolution actions may be “bifurcated” for an early “status-only” judgment, reserving jurisdiction over all other issues.  Fam. Code section 2337.  Upon noticed motion, the court may sever, or bifurcate, the issue of marital status from other issues and grant an early and separate trial on the issue of dissolution of marriage status, i.e, a “status only” judgment, expressly reserving jurisdiction of all other pending issues for a later determination.  Fam.Code section 2337(a), (f); see Marriage of Wolfe (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 889, 894; Marriage of Bergman (1985) 168 Cal.App. 3d 742, 755.  According to Fam. Code section 2337(c)(5),

Until judgment has been entered on all remaining issues and has become final, the party shall indemnify and hold the other party harmless from any adverse consequences to the other party if the bifurcation results in the loss of the other party's rights with respect to any retirement, survivor, or deferred compensation benefits under any plan, fund, or arrangement, or to any elections or options associated therewith, to the extent that the other party would have been entitled to those benefits or elections as the spouse or surviving spouse of the party.

A party should request bifurcation on the FL-300 Request for Order form with attached FL-315 Request or Response to Request for Separate Trial form.  CRC 5.390(a).  The moving party must also serve a preliminary declaration of disclosure with the motion unless the party has already done so.  Fam.Code section 2337(b).

            The Judicial Council has adopted a form FL-340 Findings and Order After Hearing cover sheet as well as form attachment FL-347 for an order granting a status-only bifurcation request.  However, the FL-180 form for judgments also applies and includes options for bifurcation and reservation of remaining issues.  FL-347 reflects the Family Code conditions for bifurcation of the status of marriage or domestic partnership.  Form FL-347 section 3 sets forth the court’s orders regarding retirement plans. 

Following this recitation of orders, the form requires the court to list each retirement plan and the type of order, i.e., 3a(1), 3a(2), or 3a(3), which the court is making for that plan.

            Respondent presents this motion on the proper forms.  The relief requested is consistent with the law, as set forth above.  The request indicates that there are no retirement plans at issue and that the motion seeks a determination only as to status, not as to any other issues, at this time.  However, Respondent has not provided a proposed judgment on Form FL-180.

Conclusion

            The court GRANTS the motion, orders bifurcation of the status of marriage from all other issues, and hereby enters an order dissolving the marriage status but addressing no other issues, subject to Respondent submitting a proper and complete proposed FL-180 judgment form consistent with this court’s order and the relief requested in this motion.  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 3.1312.
 

4. SFL093766, Johnson v Mackey
   MOTION FOR BIFURCATION OF MARITAL STATUS AND RE-FILE DEFAULT CONTINUED TO JULY 17, 2025 AT 9AM. Proof of service of the motion was not timely.