Family Law Tentative Rulings
DEPT. 21 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) 521-6836 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
Thursday, April 17, 2025, at 9:00 a.m.
Honorable Kinna Patel Crocker
TENTATIVE RULINGS
LAW & MOTION CALENDAR
Thursday, April 17, 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.
- 24FL02259, Valladares Cruz v. Bonilla Lopez
MOTION TO BE RELIEVED BY COUNSEL STICKNEY IS DROPPED AS MOOT. A SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY WAS FILED 4/14/2025.
- SFL082041, Donecker v. Donecker
MOTION TO BE RELIEVED BY COUNSEL CAMPOY IS GRANTED.
- SFL084243, MacNeil v. MacNeil
MOTION GRANTED.
As requested by the Court on 3/6/2025, Respondent provided a Memorandum of Points and Authorities (“Memorandum”) addressing the legal basis for the request, whether any agreements existed between the parties and whether there are known heirs. Based on the initial Request for Order filed 1/27/2025 and the supplemental information in the Memorandum, the motion is granted. 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. Any 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.
- SFL086666, Longmire v. Longmire
MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AND ENTER JUDGMENT GRANTED. ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS IS RESERVED.
Facts
Petitioner filed this action for dissolution of marriage with no minor children on August 31, 2020. Respondent filed her response on September 16, 2020. The parties on August 18, 2022 entered into a settlement agreement (the “Settlement”) on the record following a Judicially Supervised Settlement Conference.
Motion
In his Request for Order (“RFO”) and Motion to Enforce Settlement & Enter Judgment (CCP 664.6), Petitioner moves the court to enter judgment pursuant to the terms of the Settlement on the ground that Respondent has refused to sign a written Marital Settlement Agreement (“MSA”) reflecting the terms to which the parties have agreed, and instead has continually sought to modify the Settlement terms.
Respondent opposes the motion. She contends there have been discrepancies in the terms as presented in the proposed final MSAs; Petitioner’s attorney has not been contacting her regularly and has delayed in bringing this motion; and that the Settlement is not “fair and just.” She asserts, vaguely and only in general conclusory terms with no explanation, that the written MSA proposals differ in that they refer to new property which she did not know that Petitioner had. She asks the court to set a new settlement conference so the parties may “come to a new agreement that is fair and just.”
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).
Obligations imposed under a marital settlement agreement (“MSA”) which has not been “merged” or “incorporated” into the judgment remain enforceable by ordinary contract remedies and provisions for enforcement of settlement agreements. See Fam.Code section 2128(b); Marriage of Lane (1985) 165 Cal.App. 3d 1143, 1147-1149 (breach of warranty action available to enforce MSA warranties because there was no merger); see also Marriage of Armato (2001) 88 Cal.App. 4th 1030, 1045-1047 (signed written agreement increasing child support enforceable by motion pursuant to CCP section 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 section 664.6. This gives the court discretion.
In addition, CCP §128 gives the court the power to control the proceedings before it, preserve and enforce order, compel obedience to judgments, orders, etc.; and make orders and process “conform to law and justice.” The court in Venice Canals Resident Home Owners Ass'n v. Superior Court In and For Los Angeles County (1977) 72 Cal.App.3d 675, at 679, explained,
The inherent power of the trial court to exercise reasonable control over litigation before it, as well as the inherent and equitable power to achieve justice and prevent misuse of processes lawfully issued is well established [Citations]; the court may make discretionary orders with reasonable conditions; and even make subsequent limitations and modifications of prior orders in order to achieve justice [Citation]….”
Courts therefore have inherent power to control judicial proceedings in order to insure orderly administration of justice and to see to it that all persons indulge in no act or conduct calculated to obstruct administration of justice. People v. Smith (1970) 13 Cal.App.3d 897.
Discussion
There is no dispute that the parties entered into the Settlement on the record after a judicially supervised settlement conference. The court records and the transcript of the hearing demonstrate such fact, attached as Exhibit A to the moving papers. The records also demonstrate that Respondent agreed on the record to the terms of the Settlement. The terms of the agreement are set forth in the transcript from the hearing as presented to the court and agreed to on the record. Respondent does not dispute these facts.
There is also no dispute that Respondent has refused to sign a proposed final written MSA. Respondent also admits that.
Respondent argues that the written MSA documents presented to her on different occasions differ from each other and from the Settlement on the record. She does not indicate what these differences are. Respondent also fails to counter Petitioner’s evidence showing that it was Respondent’s own former attorney, representing her during and after the Settlement negotiations, who prepared the written MSA, and neither Petitioner nor his attorney prepared the written MSA. Petitioner also shows that each time he presented the MSA to Respondent to sign, he merely presented the same version which Respondent’s attorney had prepared. Respondent does not address this or dispute it but merely makes the vague and conclusory statement that the property terms contained unspecified discrepancies.
Respondent contends that Petitioner failed to communicate with her regularly about this issue and failed to give her notice. However, Petitioner’s evidence demonstrates several communications regarding the issue through December 2024. The record also demonstrates that the parties took part in several compliance hearings regarding the Settlement through September 14, 2023. At a compliance hearing on December 8, 2022, the court indicated that if Respondent did not sign the MSA by December 12, 2022, Petitioner could file a motion and seek attorney’s fees. The subsequent hearings revealed that Respondent still refused to sign and that Petitioner intended to bring a motion to seek relief. Nothing further occurred in the court until Respondent filed a request for a case resolution conference in September 2024. The court heard that matter and continued the matter to June 2025.
Respondent also claims that she wants to renegotiate the Settlement to obtain one that is “fair and just.” This is not directly relevant to this motion because the fact remains that she entered into the Settlement at a judicially supervised settlement conference and on the record before the court, during which the court specifically addressed the issues and the parties’ knowledge and consent, with Respondent agreeing at all times on the record. If Respondent claims, as she seems to imply vaguely, that Petitioner had hidden property assets from her at the time of the Settlement and that this could be grounds for setting aside the Settlement, she must prepare a proper motion to that effect and present actual evidence and explanation. She has not sought such relief, but has merely refused to sign the MA and comply with the Settlement. She also provides no actual evidence or even an explanation for her claims, which are wholly vague and conclusory.
Respondent has not indicated a willingness to comply with the specific terms as set forth on the record, either, but has consistently demonstrated, and continues to do so in this motion, that she simply wishes to renegotiate the Settlement terms entirely.
At the same time, it is not clear that the court should enter judgment pursuant to the terms of the written MSA, to which Respondent has not agreed. It is not possible for the court to determine whether the MSA terms actually reflect the terms to which the parties agreed on the record. At this time, if the court were to grant the motion, the court must grant the motion to enter judgment with the terms as specifically set forth in the Settlement on the record. The court at this time finds it appropriate to grant the motion to that extent. It is evident from the record and evidence that the parties entered into the Settlement properly on the record and that it is enforceable, but that Respondent has refused to comply.
The court grants the motion to the extent that it enters judgment pursuant to the terms set forth in the Settlement on the record.
Attorney’s Fees and Costs
Petitioner requests an award of attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to Fam. Code section 271. The court notes that the terms of the Settlement on the record do not themselves include any discussion of attorney’s fees and costs. The Settlement thus does not itself provide authority for such an award but also does not preclude such an award.
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 entitlement to an award of attorney’s fees and costs in this matter pursuant to Fam. Code section 271. Respondent has frustrated the efforts to complete, and comply with, the Settlement and expressly admits that she refuses to agree to the terms as entered on the record. At the same time, she has offered no clear explanation for this position aside from the fact that she wishes to alter the terms.
Petitioner does not at this time actually seek an award of attorney’s fees but instead merely asks the court to reserve jurisdiction to hear the matter. The court grants this request.
Conclusion
The motion is granted as set forth above. 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.
- SFL56241, Price v. Price
MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS GRANTED. SANCTIONS AWARDED TO PETITIONER OF $910.
Facts
Petitioner filed this action for dissolution of marriage with minor child on August 23, 2011. The parties’ child, born in March 2006, is no longer a minor but child support remains an issue. The parties continue to litigate over financial issues, child support, and spousal support. Among other things, Respondent filed a request to change support obligations on October 8, 2024 and this case is currently set for a hearing regarding child support on June 10, 2025.
Petitioner served Respondent with Request for Production of Documents, Set One (“RFPs”) on October 31, 2024; the deadline for responding expired; and Respondent never responded despite Petitioner sending a meet-and-confer letter to Respondent about the issue on December 31, 2024.
Motion
In her Request for Order (“RFO”) and Motion to Compel Response to Request for Production of Documents, Petitioner moves the court to compel Respondent to provide responses to the RFPs without objection and to impose monetary sanctions on Respondent.
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 (“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).
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.
The normal statutory time to respond is 30 days but with service by mail, as here, the responding party has an additional 5 calendar days. CCP sections 2031.260, 1013. Similarly, the date for actual production must also be at least 30 days after service of the demand, plus 5 days for mailing the demand. CCP section 2031.030(c)(2), 1013.
Discussion
Petitioner demonstrates that she is entitled to the order compelling Respondent to provide written responses to the RFPs without objection. Respondent has failed to respond in any fashion and the deadline for doing so has expired.
The court grants the motion as to compelling Respondent to provide written responses without objection to the RFPs.
Sanctions
Petitioner also seeks monetary sanctions pursuant to the Discovery Act. For compelling responses to production requests, the court shall impose monetary sanctions unless that party acted with substantial justification, or other circumstances make sanctions unjust. CCP sections 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 section 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 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.
Petitioner seeks monetary sanctions of $2,000 based on $850 in attorney fees for two hours at $425 per hour plus the $60 filing fee, and unspecified anticipated time. The court may only award sanctions for expenses both actually and reasonably incurred. At this time, that amounts to $910. The court awards sanctions of $910 to the moving party and against Respondent, subject to modification in the event of additional actual and reasonable expenses.
Conclusion
The court grants the motion as set forth above. 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.
- SFL64926, Reyes v. Reyes
MOTION TO BE RELIEVED BY COUNSEL BERREY CONTINUED TO JULY 9, 2025 AT 1:30PM IN DEPARTMENT 21.