Parmi, Sydney Vs Parmi, Edward J

Case Number: 24STCP01525 Hearing Date: July 15, 2024 Dept: 9 Petitioner must double check the spelling and legibility of the new name on the proposed decree. If Petitioner is satisfied with the spelling and legibility of the new name on the proposed decree, NO APPEARANCE IS NECESSARY. If the new name is not clearly written and correctly spelled on the proposed decree, Petitioner must appear at the hearing to submit a corrected proposed decree. The petition is granted. A copy of the signed decree will be available in Room 112 of the Clerk's Office seven days after the date of the hearing. Once the proposed decree is signed, it cannot be amended without a new petition to change name.

Case Number: 24STCP01487 Hearing Date: July 15, 2024 Dept: 9 Petitioner must double check the spelling and legibility of the new name on the proposed decree. If Petitioner is satisfied with the spelling and legibility of the new name on the proposed decree, NO APPEARANCE IS NECESSARY. If the new name is not clearly written and correctly spelled on the proposed decree, Petitioner must appear at the hearing to submit a corrected proposed decree. The petition is granted. A copy of the signed decree will be available in Room 112 of the Clerk's Office seven days after the date of the hearing. Once the proposed decree is signed, it cannot be amended without a new petition to change name.

FL-23-000439 – VARANI VS VARANI Continued Hearing on Petitioner’s Request for Order re Attorney’s Fees, etc.—HEARING REQUIRED. Counsel shall meet and confer on all issues in good faith, and shall exchange any and all documents to be used for proof of any material fact other than impeachment.  (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 5.98.)

FL-23-002067 – JACKSON VS JACKSON Petitioner’s Request for Order re “Sell Family Residence,” etc.—HEARING REQUIRED. This is a continued hearing.  It appears that the request regarding the 1972 Chevrolet Pickup Truck has been resolved or is moot.  Likewise, this appears to be the case with the request regarding the marital residence because Respondent is not opposed to sale provided that sufficient time before listing and sale is extended in order to conduct repairs necessary to obtain full value and as short a time on market as possible.  (Respondent’s Supplemental Declaration.)  The Court will reserve jurisdiction over the question of attorney’s fees and costs until disposition of the marital residence.  Counsel are to meet and confer prior to the hearing as to a reasonable time for repairs to be completed and any other disputes that are within the scope of the pending order request.  (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 5.98.) The following are the tentative ruling cases calendared before Judge J. Richard Distaso in Department #13: THERE ARE NO TENTATIVES. The following are the tentative ruling cases calendared before Judge Sweena Pannu in Department #14: THERE ARE NO TENTATIVES. The following are the tentative ruling cases calendared before Judge David I. Hood in Department #25:

No appearances necessary. The Petition for Dissolution was filed January 16, 2024. A Proof of Service (FL-115) is filed. More than 30 days have passed since service and no Response is filed. Petitioner must file the form FL-165 and request entry of default and proceed to default judgment. Further case management is scheduled for November 5, 2024 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 3. A Family Law CMC Statement must be filed and served at least 15 days prior to the CMC. (https://www.amadorcourt.org/localForms/familyLaw/FamilyLaw_CMC-STATEMENT.pdf

CITY OF ANDERSON VS. KRUMINS, ET AL. Case Number: 23CV-0203032 This matter is on calendar for review regarding status of the receivership and clean up of the property. On July 2, 2024, the Court granted the Receiver’s Ex Parte Application for Order to Respondents to Vacate the Receivership Property. The Ninth Report of the Receiver was filed on July 10, 2024. An appearance by all parties is necessary on today’s calendar to discuss the status of the receivership.

Case Number: 24STCP01553 Hearing Date: July 15, 2024 Dept: 9 The petition is CONTINUED to September 9, 2024 at 9:30 am. No proof of publication has been filed. Petitioner must file proof of publication no later than one week before the continued hearing date. Failure to do so will result in denial and dismissal of the petition without prejudice. Court Clerk to give notice.

FL-19-002701 – WHITTAKER VS GRAY Petitioner’s Request for Order re Enforce Judgment, etc.—HEARING REQUIRED. The Court finds that proof of service is on file and reflects valid and timely individual mail service of Respondent as required.  (Fam. Code, § 215(a).)  Respondent did not file a Responsive Declaration or written opposition.  Consequently, the Court is inclined to grant the requested relief.  However, a final judgment is already an “order” that the parties are bound to comply with and a further order to comply by the Court would be redundant.  That said, Petitioner’s claims all relate to that part of the judgment dealing with division of pension plans and this has not been accomplished due to Respondent’s non-cooperation.  Accordingly, the Court will not further delay proceedings by again ordering Respondent’s cooperation and, instead, finds good cause to appoint the clerk of the Court as elisor to sign the QDRO and other necessary papers on Respondent’s behalf.  But Petitioner must first submit a proposed order with the exact documents to be signed attached to it for review and approval by the Court.  (Local Rules, rule 7.08(A).)  Petitioner is free to use all the means to obtain information provided by the Civil Discovery Act if documents or other information has not been provided by Respondent.  (Fam. Code, § 218.)  And the Court will reserve jurisdiction over the issue of monetary sanctions against Respondent for the necessity of Petitioner having to file post-judgment motions to obtain Respondent’s compliance.