Christopher Bryan Felmey Vs Brianna Anjelica Felmey

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-21-001943 – WRIGHT VS WRIGHT Continued Hearing on Petitioner’s Request for Order re Bifurcation, etc.—HEARING REQUIRED. Regarding pension plan joinder, the Court has reviewed Petitioner’s exhibits and finds that the subject pension plan is an ERISA-governed 401-K plan for which joinder is not required as a condition precedent to granting bifurcation and early termination of marital status.  (Petitioner’s Declaration, 6/9/24, Exh. E.)  Regarding Petitioner’s argument that marital status “is separate from issues related to property,” Petitioner is incorrect, and obviously so.  The entire reason that declarations of disclosure and pension plan joinder are prerequisites to bifurcation and early termination of marital status is because marital status is of great consequence to property division and equalization.  (See, Hogoboom & King, Cal. Prac. Guide Family L. (TRG 2024) Ch. 11-D, § 11:483 [“A judgment of dissolution effectively terminates a vast body of rights and benefits attaching to marital or domestic partnership status. Therefore, courts may impose various conditions on a party upon the granting of a ‘status only’ bifurcation motion and entry of a ‘status only’ dissolution judgment to protect the other party against losses that would result from such adverse consequences”], emphasis added.) Accordingly, Petitioner’s resistance to providing an updated Income and Expense Declaration and his opposition to the protective conditions are not well-taken.  The Court is inclined to grant early termination of marital status in this case, but the Court is not inclined to do so unless and until Petitioner complies with the procedural requirements for doing so.  That said, should any of the protective conditions be inapplicable or unnecessary, the Court has discretion not to impose them and will entertain arguments on this question at the hearing.  As such, the Court intends to continue the hearing and orders both Petitioner and Respondent to file and serve updated Income and Expense Declarations.  The Court further orders Petitioner to submit a proposed “status only” judgment with the protective condition and pension plan attachments, for review and signature.  (FL-347 & FL-348.)  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:

Case Number: 24STCP01504 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.

IN RE: BASSETT Case Number: 24CV-0204432 Tentative Ruling on Petition for Change of Name: Petitioner Brittany R. Basset seeks to change the name of her minor son. No proof of publication has been submitted. The Court requires a Certificate of Publication from the publishing newspaper before the Petition may be granted. Additionally, the father of the minor has objected to the proposed name change. An appearance by Petitioner and the father are necessary on today’s calendar.

No appearances necessary. The petition for dissolution was filed on January 5, 2024 and a response was filed on February 9, 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. Parties are referred to the court’s Family Law Facilitator for assistance. The FLF is available via email at selfhelp@amadorcourt.org. Parties are also directed to the Judgment Checklist (FL-182) for the required documents to complete their dissolution. Further case management is scheduled for November 15, 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.

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.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF VENTURA Tentative Ruling 2024CUPP019108: LEE ESTELLE GARRISON vs MACERICH MANAGEMENT, CO., et al. 07/19/2024 in Department 41 Motion for by Non-Party Tentative Rulings: The Court GRANTS Madeline Rana’s application to appear Pro Hac Vice. The Court GRANTS Non-party Apple Inc.’s motion for a protective order. The protective order shall be modified in a way that is limited to production of records by Apple. The Court makes the following changes to Apple’s proposed protective order: • Item 2 – Definitions. o Subparagraph (a), shall be modified to read: “Discovery Material” means all items or information, regardless of the medium or manner generated, stored, or maintained (including, among other things, testimony, transcripts, or tangible things) that are produced, disclosed, or generated by Apple, Inc., in this case. o Subparagraph (d), shall be modified to read: “Producing Party” means Apple, Inc. • Item 3 – Computation of Time o This item shall be modified to read: The computation of any period of time prescribed or allowed by this Order shall be governed by the provisions for computing time set forth in the California Code of Civil Procedure. • Item 4 – Scope o Subparagraph (a), shall be modified to read: The protections conferred by this Order cover not only Discovery Material governed by this Order as addressed herein, but also any information copied or extracted therefrom, as well as all copies, excerpts, summaries, or compilations thereof that might reveal Protected Material. • Item 8 – Discovery Materials Designated as “Confidential” o Subparagraph (b)(ii), shall be modified to read: (ii) The Receiving Party’s in-house counsel, such counsel’s immediate paralegals and staff, and any copying or clerical litigation support services working at the direction of such counsel, paralegals, and staff; o Subparagraph (b)(x), shall be added and read: (x) The Receiving Party(ies). • Item 16 – Discovery from Experts or Consultants Item 16 shall be deleted. The proposed language goes beyond the scope of Apple’s motion. 2024CUPP019108: LEE ESTELLE GARRISON vs MACERICH MANAGEMENT, CO., et al. The protective order contains a mechanism by which designations can be challenged and the parties should follow those procedures going forward. The Court declines to rule on any proposed designations at this time. A revised protective order is to be submitted forthwith. Apple to give notice.