In The Matter Of The Marriage Of Theresa Pina And Christopher Sean Pina

FL-18-000951 – BRIMHALL VS BRIMHALL Petitioner’s Request for Order re Change Venue—DENIED, without prejudice. There is no proof of service on file as required.  (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 5.94(b).) This is a dissolution case in which a status-only judgment was filed on July 3, 2021, but no judgment on reserved issues has been entered, and Petitioner’s counsel recently withdrew.  Accordingly, individual party service of Respondent is mandatory and jurisdictional.  (Fam. Code, § 215(a).) That said, the parties’ Stipulation and Order of January 8, 2021, resolved Petitioner’s move-away request and resulted in an agreed move of Petitioner and the minor child to the county of San Diego.  Further, Petitioner alleges that Respondent no longer resides in this forum.  If true, then the Court has authority to transfer the case as requested to San Diego County based on the convenience of the parties and the ends of justice.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 397.5.)  The Court is inclined to grant the request based on this authority, but Respondent must either be properly served or else Respondent must personally appear and waive service.  Petitioner may attempt to demonstrate good cause to continue the hearing to obtain service of Respondent; otherwise, the request will be denied without prejudice and Petitioner will need to file and serve a new order request.

METZGER, SR. VS. METZGER, JR., ET AL. Case Number: 22CV-0201077 Tentative Ruling on Order to Show Cause Re Dismissal: An Order to Show Cause Re Dismissal (“OSC”) issued on May 28, 2024 by Judge Boeckman, pursuant to Gov’t Code § 68608(b) to Plaintiff and Counsel for failure to cure the defects noted by the Court on February 20, 2024. Plaintiff has not filed a response to the OSC. However, proof of service has been filed indicating that the Second Amended Complaint has been served on all parties. The OSC is DISCHARGED. No appearance is necessary on the 8:30 a.m. calendar. The Court confirms today’s 9:00 a.m. review hearing.

FLORES VS. HUDSON Case Number: 24CV-0204646 Tentative Ruling on Order to Show Cause Re: Sanctions: An Order to Show Cause Re: Sanctions issued on June 13, 2024, to Plaintiff Eladio Flores, in pro per, for failure to timely serve pleadings on Defendant Katheryn Elizabeth Hudson (Katy Perry) pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.110(b). “The complaint must be served on all named defendants and proofs of service on those defendants must be filed with the court within 60 days after the filing of the complaint.” CRC 3.110(b). The Complaint in this matter was filed on March 29, 2024, and no proof of service has been filed. Plaintiff did not file a written response to the Order to Show Cause. With no sufficient excuse for the delay, sanctions are imposed in the amount of $250.00 against Plaintiff. The clerk is instructed to prepare a separate Order of Sanctions. The Court will issue an Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal pursuant to Gov’t Code Section 68608(b) for Plaintiff’s failure to timely serve the complaint. The hearing on the Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal is set for Monday, September 9, 2024, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 64. The clerk is instructed to prepare a separate Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal. This matter is also calendared on Monday, September 9, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 64 for review regarding status of service.

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:

IN RE: TABAG Case Number: 24CV-0204603 Tentative Ruling on Petition for Change of Name: Petitioner Ramsey Anthony Viloria Tabag also known as Ramsey C. Viloria seeks to change his name to Ramsey Viloria. All procedural requirements of CCP §§ 1275 et. seq. have been satisfied. The Petition is GRANTED. All future dates will be vacated, and the file closed upon the processing of the Decree Changing Name.

METZGER, SR. VS. METZGER, JR., ET AL. Case Number: 22CV-0201077 Tentative Ruling on Order to Show Cause Re Dismissal: An Order to Show Cause Re Dismissal (“OSC”) issued on May 28, 2024 by Judge Boeckman, pursuant to Gov’t Code § 68608(b) to Plaintiff and Counsel for failure to cure the defects noted by the Court on February 20, 2024. Plaintiff has not filed a response to the OSC. However, proof of service has been filed indicating that the Second Amended Complaint has been served on all parties. The OSC is DISCHARGED. No appearance is necessary on the 8:30 a.m. calendar. The Court confirms today’s 9:00 a.m. review hearing.

FL-24-000399 – AGUAYO-MARTINEZ VS ZARAGOZA Respondent’s Request for Order re Discovery—HEARING REQUIRED. After review of the papers and pleadings, the Court finds that a discovery dispute has arisen that appears amenable to resolution without a contested hearing.  Accordingly, the Court is inclined to set an Informal Discovery Conference (IDC) under the auspices of a Family Centered Case Resolution Plan, and to stay determination of the present motion and any other pending discovery disputes until completion of the IDC. (Fam. Code, §§ 2450(a), 2451(a)(3); Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 5.83(c)(6)(D),(E).)  The parties shall appear and may be heard on the IDC and, if ordered, to schedule the IDC at the earliest mutual availability of counsel and the IDC officer. 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:

FL-24-000399 – AGUAYO-MARTINEZ VS ZARAGOZA Respondent’s Request for Order re Discovery—HEARING REQUIRED. After review of the papers and pleadings, the Court finds that a discovery dispute has arisen that appears amenable to resolution without a contested hearing.  Accordingly, the Court is inclined to set an Informal Discovery Conference (IDC) under the auspices of a Family Centered Case Resolution Plan, and to stay determination of the present motion and any other pending discovery disputes until completion of the IDC. (Fam. Code, §§ 2450(a), 2451(a)(3); Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 5.83(c)(6)(D),(E).)  The parties shall appear and may be heard on the IDC and, if ordered, to schedule the IDC at the earliest mutual availability of counsel and the IDC officer. 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: