In The Matter Of The Application Of Kallie Diane Robbins For A Change Of Name On Behalf Of Johnathon Cason Obray

Case Number: 24STCP01511 Hearing Date: July 15, 2024 Dept: 9 The criminal history assessment that the Courts Clerks Office has run through CLETS reveals that Petitioner has an active outstanding warrant. NIC-W243852751 WANTED-NCIC #W243852751 Petitioner must clear the outstanding warrant and file evidence of such before the Court will rule on the petition for name change. The OSC and hearing on the petition for name change are continued to September 9, 2024 at 9:30 am. No later than two weeks before the continued OSC and hearing, Petitioner must file written proof that the outstanding bench warrant has been fully addressed and resolved. Failure to do so will result in the OSC and hearing on the petition being taken off calendar without prejudice to be placed back on calendar upon filing of proof that all outstanding warrants have been cleared. The Court Clerk is to run a new criminal history assessment prior to the continued OSC to verify that the warrant has been cleared. The Court Clerk is to give notice to all parties.

No appearances necessary. The petition for dissolution was filed on January 8, 2024 and a response was filed on March 14, 2024. The parties are ordered to serve their Preliminary Financial Disclosures (FL-140) and file a Declaration Regarding Service (FL-141) before the next court appearance. Further case management is scheduled for October 18, 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)

Case Number: 24STCP01517 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-24-001007 – JONES VS HERNANDEZ Respondent’s Request for Order re Child Custody, etc.—DENIED, without prejudice. Respondent filed the instant order request to modify child custody and visitation orders, but also requested to dismiss this action “for lack of jurisdiction due to perjury by Pet,” (sic.).  There is no proof of service on file and no responsive declaration from Petitioner.  As such, the Court will not entertain the merits of either request at this hearing.  However, custody mediation was previously instituted and remains pending, with a continued mediation presently set for July 31, 2024.  Respondent’s custody modification request is therefore redundant and may be considered in conjunction with the pending mediation. Regarding jurisdiction, the Court has conferred with the Utah state court judge pursuant to the UCCJEA and the Court adopted that judge’s order declining home state jurisdiction in favor of California and this Court, which was confirmed by the Court’s Minute Order of May 24, 2024.  That order is final and the time for reconsideration, review or appeal has expired.  None of Respondent’s allegations concerning false statements made by Petitioner implicate this Court’s jurisdiction under the UCCJEA even if said allegations were true.  Accordingly, while Respondent remains free to seek a continuance of the hearing for service, the Court finds nothing in Respondent’s present motion that affects the Court’s jurisdiction over the parties or the subject matter of this action. The following are the tentative ruling cases calendared before Judge David I. Hood in Department #25: THERE ARE NO TENTATIVES.

Case Number: 24STCP01473 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: 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.

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.

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: