Skip to main content
Skip to main content.

Announcement:

Court to Launch Significant Hardware Upgrade in May.

The Orange County Superior Court, Technology Department, will be performing a significant hardware upgrade Friday, May 17, 2024, beginning at 6:00 p.m. and continuing through Sunday, May 19, 2024.  During this time, network and online services will be down and unavailable.  Network and online services will be available again beginning on Sunday, May 19, 2024, after 8:00 p.m.

Dept. H13

 Family Law

Tentative Rulings

Dept. H-13

Commissioner Renee Wilson

July 16 2021

PLEASE REVIEW THE FOLLOWING

All Law & Motion Tentative Rulings will be posted at least one day prior to the hearing date.  If either party is requesting a continuance prior to the posting of the Tentative Ruling, meet and confer with opposing party and call the Court at least one week prior to your hearing date.

PLEADINGS NOT TIMELY FILED MAY NOT BE CONSIDERED IN THESE RULINGS.  Proof of Service of Motions MUST be filed 5 days prior to hearing (CRC 3.1300 and OC Rule 710.E). 

#

Case Name

Tentative

1

Cielo v De La Cruz

Motion  to Compel Response to 3rd party subpoena and sanctions

Denied – Trial was initially set 6/7/21.  This request is not timely.  Per CCP 2024.020(b) a continuance of the trial does not operate to reopen discovery proceedings.

On the merits:  If there was an agreement to extend, the POS for PC Hospitality states personal service was unsuccessful for agent, Sam Bam Boukai.

 

 3

Kelly v Wacker

Motion to Compel further Responses to demand for production –

 

Has RP/H served further responses?  If so this motion is moot.  If no, motion granted for production, set 3, demand 4, 10, 11 and produce documents commensurate with response within 10 days.

4

IRMO Pham

Motion to Enforce Judgment

Denied -

It appears that it was Husband who was awarded 8% interest in the Scarlet property not Wife.  The amended judgment only awarded Wife an 8% interest in rents from 5/10/16 to present  Nowhere in the Amended Judgment does it grant Wife 8% interest in the property!  Said claim contradicts the prior Partial Judgment which clearly awarded the property to Husband.  Wife’s remaining demands under the judgment are “claims” for reimbursement from Nga for the purchase under Moorse/Marden claim.

Wife does not have and enforceable order to require sale:

1.    No Judgment awarding her 8% interest;

2.    No judgment as to a specific amount of rents

3.    No judgment to 25K reimbursement from Nga

4.    No judgment as to Moorse/Marsden

It would appear that given that Nga has not been joined – partition action is a possibility.

5

 

6

7

8

9

10

Was this helpful?

This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.