Theresa Cook V Jeremy Cook -Non-Trial

FL-21-000328 – DEGUDINO VS ALVAREZ a) Petitioner’s Request for Order re Quash Subpoena—HEARING REQUIRED; b) Petitioner’s Request for Order re Spousal Support, etc.—HEARING REQUIRED, in part; DENIED, without prejudice, in part. a) For good cause, the Court is inclined to order an Informal Discovery Conference (IDC) regarding this motion pursuant to the Local Rules.  Counsel shall appear to be heard regarding the IDC and/or to schedule the earliest mutually available date for such. b) The child visitation, child support and spousal support requests require a hearing.  The bifurcation request is denied without prejudice as the required bifurcation attachment (FL-315) was not filed and served with the motion.  (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 5.390.)  The request for a pendente lite sale order of the marital residence is denied without prejudice as Petitioner does not offer any evidence that the alleged failure to make mortgage payments as ordered has resulted in the lender instituting foreclosure proceedings.  (Fam. Code, § 2108.)  Lastly, the request for a forensic economist to be appointed by the Court pursuant to Evidence Code section 730 is also denied without prejudice as each party has the right and ability to select and retain their own expert witnesses under the Civil Discovery Act and no showing has been made that the Court will require an “independent” or “tie-breaker” expert in order to adjudicate the marital estate in this case. The following are the tentative ruling cases calendared before Judge David I. Hood in Department #25: THERE ARE NO TENTATIVES.

FL-21-000664 – MARTINEZ VS RIVAS Petitioner’s Request for Order re “Other,” etc.—HEARING REQUIRED. Judgment in this matter was entered on January 2, 2024 and provided, in relevant part, that Respondent was awarded as her separate property “the Youngstown property and the vacant lot in Turlock” with the obligation to remove Petitioner’s name from the deed(s) and any loans within no more than six (6) months at the latest, with the Court reserving jurisdiction over this matter expressly.  (Judgment, p. 18 of 22, ¶ No. 2.)  Petitioner asks that the Court order Respondent to comply but the Judgment itself is already an order and the parties are each required to cooperate in effectuating the terms of the judgment.  Respondent’s declaration states that she has been diligently pursuing the necessary refinance but that Petitioner’s own actions have made the process more difficult and more expensive by unilaterally cancelling the homeowner’s insurance coverage and by unilaterally terminating the automatic bank payments to the lender.  It has been widely publicized and is a matter of common knowledge such that the Court may take judicial notice of the fact that major, nationwide insurance companies have been cancelling homeowner’s policies in California and have either sought to withdraw entirely from the California market or else are seeking large premium increases from the California Department of Insurance in order to remain in-market.  (Evid. Code, §§ 451(f) [Facts and propositions of generalize knowledge that are so universally known that they cannot reasonably be the subject of dispute]; 452(g) [Facts and propositions that are of such common knowledge within the territorial jurisdiction of the court that they cannot reasonably be the subject of dispute]; 455(a) [court may take judicial notice on its own motion provided parties are given the opportunity to be heard].)  As such, subject to the testimony and evidence that may be offered at the hearing, the Court is inclined to deny Petitioner’s request without prejudice or else continue the hearing to allow Respondent further time to comply with the Judgment.  Either way, the Court will continue to reserve jurisdiction over this issue and also the issue of whether either party’s conduct warrants the imposition of monetary sanctions and/or an award of fees and costs for failure to cooperate and comply with the terms of the Judgment.  (Fam. Code, § 271.) 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:

IN RE: PURSELL Case Number: 24CV-0204719 Tentative Ruling on Petition for Change of Name: Petitioner Kim Curtis Pursell seeks to change his name to Curtis Pursell. 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.

PARSONS, ET AL. Case Number: 23CVG-00175 This matter is on calendar for status of accounting. The Inventory and Accounting have been filed pursuant to California Civil Code section 798.61. The clerk is directed to close the file. No appearance is necessary on today’s calendar.

PARSONS, ET AL. Case Number: 23CVG-00175 This matter is on calendar for status of accounting. The Inventory and Accounting have been filed pursuant to California Civil Code section 798.61. The clerk is directed to close the file. No appearance is necessary on today’s calendar.

SIERRA PACIFIC WAGE AND HOUR CASES Case Number: 5235 Tentative Ruling on Case Management Conference: This coordinated proceeding is on calendar for a Case Management Conference. The Court has reviewed the Case Management Conference Statements filed by Plaintiff Smith and Defendant Sierra Pacific Industries. STAY. The McDonald matter remains stayed pending appeal. CLASS NOTICE. The Court appreciates the efforts made by SPI in identifying employees placed at SPI by staffing agencies and is in agreement with SPI’s suggestions regarding the employees at SPI placed by Sonora Employment Agency. The Court invites Plaintiff McDonald to discuss the proposals made by SPI. MOTIONS. There are currently no motions pending in the Smith matter. Pending in McDonald are SPI’s Motion for Extension of Time to Comply with Court Order Due to Impossibility that was filed on August 31, 2023 and SPI’s Motion for Protective Order Regarding Preservation and Production of Video Camera Footage that was filed on September 1, 2023. Both motions are stayed. TRIAL DATES. McDonald is not presently set for trial. The Court notes that Plaintiffs in Smith filed their Third Amended Complaint on February 28, 2024. SPI filed an Answer on April 2, 2024. As the matter is now at issue, the parties should be ready to discuss a timeline for a Motion for Class Certification. FURTHER CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE DATE. The Court intends to set a further Case Management Conference and will discuss available dates with counsel.

IN RE: WEDEMEYER Case Number: 24CV-0204666 Tentative Ruling on Petition for Change of Name: Petitioner Phoebe Joy Wedemeyer seeks to change her name to Phoebe Joy Mills. No proof of publication has been submitted. The Court requires a Certificate of Publication from the publishing newspaper before the Petition may be granted. If the Certificate of Publication is provided, the Court intends to grant the Petition, vacate all future dates, and close the file.

IN RE: PURSELL Case Number: 24CV-0204719 Tentative Ruling on Petition for Change of Name: Petitioner Kim Curtis Pursell seeks to change his name to Curtis Pursell. 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.