In The Matter Of The Marriage Of Laura Villalobos Vs. Emmanuelle Gil Perez

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.

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.

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: 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.

Parties, or counsel if represented, are ordered to appear personally or remotely for hearing. You must notify the court and all other parties that you intend to appear remotely using form RA-010. In addition to providing notice, a Zoom link must be requested no later than one (1) court day before the hearing and shall be submitted to the Court through the Court’s website at https://www.amadorcourt.org/gi-zoomRequestForm.aspx.

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.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF VENTURA Tentative Ruling 2024CUPT024463: IN THE MATTER OF: MARCUS ALAN SILVERBERG 07/17/2024 in Department 21 OSC - Name Change The morning calendar in courtroom 21 will normally begin between 8:30 and 8:45 a.m. Please arrive at the courtroom no later than 8:30 a.m. The door will be opened before the calendar is called. The Court allows appearances by CourtCall but is not equipped for Zoom. If appearing by CourtCall, call in no later than 8:15 a.m. If you intend to appear by CourtCall, you must make arrangements with CourtCall by 4:00 p.m. the day before your scheduled hearing. Requests for approval of a CourtCall appearance made on the morning of the hearing will not be granted. No exceptions will be made. With respect to the tentative ruling below, no notice of intent to appear is required. If you wish to submit on the tentative ruling you can fax notice to Judge Riley's secretary, Ms. Sedillos at 805-289-8705, stating that you submit on the tentative. You may also email the Court at: Courtroom21@ventura.courts.ca.gov with all counsel copied on the email. Do not call in lieu of sending a fax or email. If you submit on the tentative without appearing and the opposing party appears, the hearing will be conducted in your absence. If you are the moving party and do not communicate to the Court that you submit on the tentative or you do not appear at the hearing, the Court may deny your motion irrespective of the tentative. Unless stated otherwise at the hearing, if a formal order is not signed at the hearing, the prevailing party shall prepare a proposed order and comply with CRC 3.1312 subdivisions (a), (b), (d) and (e). The signed order shall be served on all parties and a proof of service filed with the court. A "notice of ruling" in lieu of this procedure is not authorized. Tentative Ruling The Court GRANTS the unopposed Petition to change names from Marcus Alan Silverberg Marcus Alan Silver. Petitioner is a 54-year old male (dob 4/30/1970), born in Encino and currently living in Westlake Village. The Petition and declaration are properly completed, signed and dated by Petitioner. He states that he is not under CDCR jurisdiction, and not required to register as a sex offender. There are CLETS hits related to employment and licensing applications with the State (DMV, etc.). The OSC required publication in the Tri County Sentry, which has taken place.

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.