1. Home
  2. State Courts
  3. California
  4. Fresno County Superior Courts
  5. Danette Clayton Vs Desiree Ross
SEARCH TIPS
"" "23STCV06307" Exact match of phrase
* negligen* Match anything after the *
( ) "motion" AND ("dismiss" OR "summary") Grouping of terms
~ "motion to dismiss"~3 Maximum number of positions allowed between matching words
AND "damages" AND "injuries" AND "relief" Both terms must appear in document
OR "modify" OR "amend" Either terms can appear in document
judge:last-name judge:Abbot Filter by a specific judge name.
party:party-name party:"Apple inc" Filter by a specific party name.
To learn more visit - https://support.trellis.law/boolean-operators
Date
"" "23STCV06307" Exact match of phrase
* negligen* Match anything after the *
( ) "motion" AND ("dismiss" OR "summary") Grouping of terms
~ "motion to dismiss"~3 Maximum number of positions allowed between matching words
AND "damages" AND "injuries" AND "relief" Both terms must appear in document
OR "modify" OR "amend" Either terms can appear in document
judge:last-name judge:Abbot Filter by a specific judge name.
party:party-name party:"Apple inc" Filter by a specific party name.
To learn more visit - https://support.trellis.law/boolean-operators

Contents

Details Parties Case Events

We are checking for the latest updates in this case. We will email you when the process is complete.

Danette Clayton Vs Desiree Ross

Case Last Refreshed: 3 years ago

Track Case Changes
Download Docket Print Docket

Clayton, Danette, filed a(n) Divorce,Separation - Family case against Ross, Desiree, in the jurisdiction of Fresno County. This case was filed in Fresno County Superior Courts with David C. Kalemkarian presiding.

Case Details for Clayton, Danette v. Ross, Desiree

Case Number

(Subscribe to View) Track Case Changes

Judge

David C. Kalemkarian Track Judge’s New Cases

Filing Date

December 29, 2015

Category

Dissolution - No Children

Last Refreshed

February 21, 2021

Practice Area

Family

Filing Location

Fresno County, CA

Matter Type

Divorce,Separation

Case Outcome Type

Judgment

Case Cycle Time

1420 days

Parties for Clayton, Danette v. Ross, Desiree

Plaintiffs

Clayton, Danette

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Defendants

Ross, Desiree

Case Events for Clayton, Danette v. Ross, Desiree

Date Type Description
January 29, 2020 Docket Event Dismissal Hearing

Judge: Kalemkarian, David
November 18, 2019 Docket Event Declaration regarding Service of Declaration of Disclosure
November 18, 2019 Docket Event Notice of Entry of Judgment
November 18, 2019 Docket Event Declaration for Default or Uncontested Disso or Legal Sep
November 18, 2019 Docket Event Request to Enter Default
July 23, 2019 Docket Event Judge Kalemkarian Minute Order. See Attached
HRG: 7/23/2019 Judicial Officer: D Kalemkarian Dept: 202 Clerk: L. Garvin Bailiff: A. Rivera Reporter: Not Reported Petitioner: Not present Respondent: Not present You are hereby ordered to appear in Department 202 on 1/29/2020 at 11:00 a.m., to show cause why the above-referenced case should not be dismissed. California law requires that Family Law matters proceed in an effective and timely manner from initial filing to final disposition. (Fam. Code 2450, subd. (a), and Standards of Judicial Administration, standard 5.30.) In deciding whether a case is progressing in an effective and timely manner, the Court considers procedural milestones, including the following: (A) A proof of service of summons and petition should be filed within 60 days of case initiation; (B) If no response has been filed, and the parties have not agreed on an extension of time to respond, a request to enter default should be submitted within 60 days after the date the response was due; (C) The petitioner's preliminary declaration of disclosure should be served within 60 days of the filing of the petition; (D) When a default has been entered, a judgment should be submitted within 60 days of the entry of default; (E) Whether a trial date has been requested or scheduled; and (F) When the parties have notified the court that they are actively negotiating or mediating their case, a written agreement for judgment is submitted within six months of the date the petition was filed, or a request for trial date is submitted. (Cal. Rule of Court, rule 5.83(c) (4).) The Court has reason to believe that the above-referenced case is not progressing in an effective and timely manner.
July 23, 2019 Docket Event 2 Family - Centered Status Conference

Judge: Kalemkarian, David
June 20, 2018 Docket Event 2 Family - Centered Status Conference

Judge: Tharpe, D Tyler
June 20, 2018 Docket Event Judge Tharpe Minute Order. See attached.
HRG: 6/20/2018 Judicial Officer: D. Tharpe Dept: 202 Clerk: Mp Vang Bailiff: J Espinoza Petitioner present pro per Respondent not present Continued to: Next family centered case status conference Date: 7/23/2019 Time: 9:30a.m. Dept: 202 Petitioner is present and have been assisted by a staff from the Self-Help Center. The matter is not called on the record. Matter continued for further case status conference.
February 15, 2017 Docket Event Judge Tharpe Minute Order. See attached.
Hrg: 2/15/2017 Judicial Officer: D. Tharpe Dept: 202 Clerk: MP Vang Bailiff: Harley Petitioner present pro per Respondent not present Continued to: Next family centered case status conference Date: 12/26/17 Time: 10:30a.m. Dept: 202 Petitioner is present and have been assisted by a staff from the Self-Help Center. The matter is not called on the record. Matter continued for further case status conference. Petitioner to notify the Respondent.
See all events
Request redaction

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.