Preview
Filed
07/03/2024 16:57:52
Beverley McGrew Walker
District Clerk
Fort Bend County, Texas
Baig, Umer
CAUSE NO.
24-DCV-317815
IN THE MATTER OF IN THE DISTRICT COURT
THE MARRIAGE OF
(367) JUDICIAL DISTRICT
AND
FORT BEND COUNTY, TEXAS
STANDING TEMPORARY MUTUAL INJUNCTIONS
DIVORCE NO CHILDREN
THE PARTIES TO THE ABOVE PENDING LAWSUIT ARE ORDERED TO
COMPLY WITH THE FOLLOWING ORDERS OF THE COURT WHILE THE
LAWSUIT IS PENDING. THE TEMPORARY INJUNCTION APPLIES TO THE
PETITIONER AND RESPONDENT AND IS EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY.
I CONDUCT OF THE PARTIES AND PRESERVATION OF PROPERTY.
All parties to the marriage are ORDERED to refrain from doing the
following acts:
Intentionally communicating in person or in any other manner,
including by telephone or another electronic voice transmission,
video chat, in writing, or electronic messaging, with the other party
by use of vulgar, profane, obscene or indecent language or in a
coarse or offensive manner, with intent to annoy or alarm the other
party;
Threatening another party in person or in any other manner,
including by telephone or another electronic voice transmission,
video chat, in writing, or electronic messaging, to take unlawful action
against any person, intending by this action to annoy or alarm the
other party;
Placing a telephone call, anonymously, at an unreasonable hour, in
an offensive and repetitious manner, or without a legitimate purpose
of communication with the intent to annoy or alarm the other party;
Intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly causing bodily injury to the
other party or to a child of either party;
Threatening the other party or a child of either party with imminent
bodily injury;
Intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly destroying, removing,
concealing, encumbering, transferring or otherwise harming or
reducing the value of the property of the parties or either party with
intent to obstruct the authority of the court to order a division of the
estate of the parties in a manner that the court deems just and right,
having due regard for the rights of each party and any children of the
marriage;
Intentionally falsifying a writing or record, including an electronic
record, relating to the property of either party;
Intentionally misrepresenting or refusing to disclose to the other party
or to the court, on proper request, the existence, amount or location
of any tangible or intellectual property of the parties or either party,
including electronically stored or recorded information;
Intentionally or knowingly damaging or destroying the tangible or
intellectual property of the parties or either party, including
electronically stored or recorded information;
10 Intentionally or knowingly tampering with the tangible or intellectual
property of the parties or either party, including electronically stored
or recorded information, and causing pecuniary loss or substantial
inconvenience to the other party;
4 Except as authorized by the court:
A Selling, transferring, assigning, mortgaging,
encumbering, or in any other manner alienating any of
the property of the parties or either party, regardless of
whether the property is: (i) personal property, real
property, or intellectual property, or (ii) separate or
community property;
Incurring any debt, other than legal expenses in
connection with the suit for dissolution of marriage;
Withdrawing money from any checking or savings
account in a financial institution for any purpose;
Spending any money in either party's possession or
subject to either party's control for any purpose;
Withdrawing or borrowing money in any manner for
any purpose from a retirement, profit-sharing, pension,
death, or other employee benefit plan, employee
savings plan, individual retirement account, or Keogh
account of either part; or
Withdrawing or borrowing in any manner all or any part
of the cash surrender value of a life insurance policy on
the life of either party or a child of the parties;
12 Entering any safe-deposit box in the name of or subject to the control
of the parties or either party, whether individually or jointly with
others;
13 Changing or in any manner altering the beneficiary designation on
any life insurance policy on the life of either party or a child of the
parties;
14. Canceling, altering, failing to renew or pay premiums on, or in any
manner affecting the level of coverage that existed at the time the
suit was filed of any life, casualty, automobile, or health insurance
policy insuring the parties’ property or persons, including a child of
the parties;
15. Opening or diverting mail or email or any other electronic
communication addressed to the other party;
16 Signing or endorsing the other party's name on any negotiable
instrument, check or draft, including a tax refund, insurance
payment, and dividend, or attempting to negotiate any negotiable
instrument payable to the other party without the personal signature
of the other party;
17 Taking any action to terminate or limit credit or charge credit cards in
the name of the other party;
18 Discontinuing or reducing the withholding for federal income taxes
from either party’s wages or salary;
19 Destroying, disposing of, or altering any financial records of the
parties, including a canceled check, deposit clip, and other records
from a financial institution, a record of credit purchases or cash
advances, a tax return, and a financial statement;
20 Destroying, disposing of, or altering any email, text message, video
message, or chat message or other electronic data or electronically
stored information relevant to the subject matter of the suit for
dissolution of marriage, regardless of whether the information is
stored on a hard drive, in a removable storage device, in cloud
storage, or in another electronic storage medium;
21 Modifying, changing, or altering the native format or metadata of any
electronic data or electronically stored information relevant to the
subject matter of the suit for dissolution of marriage, regardless of
whether the information is stored on a hard drive, in a removable
storage device, in cloud storage, or in another electronic storage
medium;
22 Deleting any data or content from any social network profile used or
created by either party or a child of the parties;
23 Using any password or personal identification number to gain access
to the other party's email account, bank account social media
account, or any other electronic account;
24 Terminating or in any manner affecting the service of water,
electricity, gas, telephone, cable television, or any other contractual
service, including security, pest control, landscaping or yard
maintenance at the residence of either party, or in any manner
attempting to withdraw any deposit paid in connection with any of
those services;
25 Excluding the other party from the use and enjoyment of a
specifically identified residence of the other party; or
26 Entering, operating, or exercising control over a motor vehicle in the
possession of the other party.
27. Tracking or monitoring personal property or a motor vehicle in the
possession of a party, without that party's effective consent, including
by:
A Using a tracking application on a personal electronic
device in the possession of that party or using a
tracking device; or
Physically following that party or causing another to
physically follow that party.
n SPECIFIC AUTHORIZATIONS IN DIVORCE CASE.
All parties to the marriage are specifically authorized to do the following:
To engage in acts reasonable and necessary to conduct each party's
usual business and occupation.
To make expenditures and incur indebtedness for reasonable and
necessary attorney's fees and expenses in connection with this suit.
To make expenditures and incur indebtedness for reasonable
and necessary living expenses.
SIGNED this _| | a Ockebey +2023!
Monica Rawlins Janet Heppard
Presiding Judge residing Judge
Alon lO&—
Kali orga
Presiding Judge
Related Content
in Fort Bend County
Ruling
BRIMHALL VS BRIMHALL
Jul 23, 2024 |
FL-18-000951
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.
Ruling
Metzger, Sr. vs. Metzger, Jr., et al.
Jul 25, 2024 |
22CV-0201077
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.
Ruling
Flores vs. Hudson
Jul 27, 2024 |
24CV-0204646
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.
Ruling
JACKSON VS JACKSON
Jul 22, 2024 |
FL-23-002067
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:
Ruling
In Re: Tabag
Jul 25, 2024 |
24CV-0204603
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.
Ruling
Metzger, Sr. vs. Metzger, Jr., et al.
Jul 23, 2024 |
22CV-0201077
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.
Ruling
AGUAYO-MARTINEZ VS ZARAGOZA
Jul 24, 2024 |
FL-24-000399
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:
Ruling
AGUAYO-MARTINEZ VS ZARAGOZA
Jul 23, 2024 |
FL-24-000399
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: