Family Law Tentative Rulings - Courtroom 21

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) 521-6729 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: 876992

To appear via Zoom by phone:

• Call: +1 669-254-5252
• Enter the Meeting ID: 160-223-6856
• Passcode: 876992

1. 26FL00084, Ferguson v. Ferguson

Motion to Quash /UCCJEA Jurisdiction / Stay Requests CONTINUED to the law and motion calendar of November 19, 2026 in Department 21 at 9:00 a.m. because there is no proof of service showing service of the filed motion or notice of the hearing date.  The only proof of service is the one filed at the same time as the moving papers, showing service of the papers by mail on March 20, 2026.  If papers were served on March 20, 2026, neither party would know the hearing date because it had not yet been issued.  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 and the filed motion. 
 

2. 25FL01861, Dupre v. Dupre

Motion to Compel and Sanctions GRANTED.  Sanctions of $1,460 awarded to Petitioner, against Respondent.

Motion
 

            The Declaration of Richard Paris (the “Paris Dec.”) in support of Petitioner’s motion to compel discovery responses filed on May 5, 2026 sets forth facts regarding Petitioner’s written discovery (the “Discovery”) served on Respondent.  According to the Paris Dec., on December 30, 2025, Petitioner served Respondent with the Discovery, consisting of one set of family law form interrogatories and one set of requests for production (“RFPs”).  Both sets of the Discovery required responses within the standard statutory 30 days.  However, Respondent served no responses, made no contact, and requested no extension, by May 5, 2026, when Petitioner filed his Request for Order (“RFO”) and Motion to Compel and Sanctions. In his RFO and Motion to Compel and Sanctions, Petitioner moves the court to compel Respondent to serve responses to the written Discovery.  He also seeks monetary sanctions of $1,400 for attorney’s fees and costs.

            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).
 

Where a party seeks to compel responses to interrogatories and requests for production under CCP sections 2030.290 and 2031.300, the moving party need only demonstrate that the discovery was served, the time 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. Failure to provide a timely response waives objections, “including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product….”    CCP sections 2030.290, 2031.300.  There is no meet-and-confer requirement or a deadline for a motion to compel response where none has been made. CCP §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 sections 2030.250, 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.  However, a party need not verify responses consisting solely of objections, which only the attorney must sign.  CCP section 2030.250(a), (c), 2031.250; Blue Ridge Ins. Co. v. Sup.Ct. (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 339, 344.  A timely but unverified response containing both substantive responses and objections is invalid as to substantive responses but valid as to the objections.  See Food 4 Less Supermarkets, Inc. v. Sup.Ct. (1995) 40 Cal.App.4^th 651, 657.
 

Discussion
 

            Petitioner has met his burden here.  He shows that he served the Discovery; the deadline for responding has expired; and Respondent has served no responses.  He also shows that Respondent made no effort to communicate about the Discovery or seek an extension of the deadline for responding.
 

            The court GRANTS the motion.

Sanctions
 

            For compelling further responses, 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, 2030.300, 2031.310.  In order to obtain sanctions, the moving party must state in the notice of motion that the party is seeking sanctions, identify against whom the party seeks the sanctions, and specify the kind of sanctions.  CCP section 2023.040.  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.

            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 requests monetary sanctions against Respondent in the amount of $1,400 for 3.5 hours spent at $400 an hour plus the $60 filing fee, along with an additional amount for time anticipated.  Absent grounds for imposing additional sanctions, the court may only award sanctions for expenses both actually and reasonably incurred.  At this point, that is limited to the $1,460 for the expenses already incurred.  Petitioner is entitled to an award for sanctions in this amount.  Accordingly, the court AWARDS to Petitioner and against Respondent sanctions of $1,460.
 

Conclusion
 

            The court GRANTS the motion and awards Petitioner sanctions of $1,460.  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.