filed a(n) Domestic Violence - Family case in the jurisdiction of Nevada County. This case was filed in Nevada County Superior Courts Superior.
Dv Prevention W/Minor Child
September 29, 2023
Nevada County, CA
| Date | Type | Description |
|---|
FLORES VS. TAGGART Case Number: 24CV-0204446 Tentative Ruling on Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal: An Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal issued on July 2, 2024 to Plaintiff Eladio Flores, in pro per, for failure to timely serve the complaint and failure to timely prosecute. “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 6, 2024. There is still no Proof of Service of Summons on file. Plaintiff did not file a response to the Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal. Monetary sanctions have already been imposed for failure to timely serve and it appears that Plaintiff has made no efforts to effect proper service. Without sufficient excuse for the delay and because previous sanctions appear to have been ineffective, the matter is DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to Gov. Code § § 68608(b). All future dates are vacated. The clerk is directed to close the file.
IN RE: ORTEGA Case Number: 24CV-0204735 Tentative Ruling on Petition for Change of Name: Petitioner Raymond Antonio Ortega seeks to change his name to Raymond Antonio Medina. 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.
FLORES VS. EXECUTIVE BRANCH, FBI HEAD QUARTERS Case Number: 24CV-0204450 Tentative Ruling on Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal: An Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal issued on July 2, 2024 to Plaintiff Eladio Flores, in pro per, for failure to timely serve the complaint and failure to timely prosecute. “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 6, 2024. There is still no Proof of Service of Summons on file. Plaintiff did not file a response to the Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal. Monetary sanctions have already been imposed for failure to timely serve and it appears that Plaintiff has made no efforts to effect proper service. Without sufficient excuse for the delay and because previous sanctions appear to have been ineffective, the matter is DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to Gov. Code § § 68608(b). All future dates are vacated. The clerk is directed to close the file.
DATE: 08/23/24 TIME: 9:00 A.M. DEPT: D CASE NO: FL0000850 PRESIDING: HON. BETH S. JORDAN REPORTER: CLERK: STACY BOND PETITIONER: ANA CAROLINA AMARAL SIMMONS and RESPONDENT: PHILLIP MICHAEL SIMMONS NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: 1) REQUEST FOR ORDER — CHILD CUSTODY/VISITATION 2) REQUEST FOR ORDER — CHILD SUPPORT; OTHER: REQUEST TO SELL FAMILY HOME RULING This matter is set for hearing on Petitioner/Mother’s 6/28/24 (1) Request for Order (“RFO”) (a) modification of custody and for Mother to move to Colorado with the parties’ children: Theo (DOB 10/1/24), Revi (DOB 12/12/17), and Hugo (DOB 7/13/23), (b) for a custody evaluation; and for Respondent/Father to pay her $10,000 for attorneys’ fees. On 6/2824, Mother filed a separate RFO for child support and a request to sell the family home, which is also on for hearing. On 8/12/24, filed Father filed a Responsive Declaration to the move-away and custody issues, and a Responsive Declaration to the request for child support, spousal support, sale of the family home and attorneys’ fees and costs. Custody/Visitation Mother contends that she is financially unable to remain in California and plans to move to Colorado. She seeks to have the children move with her. Mother contends that she has always been the primary caretaker for the children, arranges all their activities and medical appointments, while Father has only focused on his career. Father opposes the children moving with Mother to Colorado, and notes that the children have been in his care 50% for the last year. He also denies that Wife takes care of scheduling all of the children’s medical appointments, but states that the parties shared responsibilities, with his focus primarily on finances. FL0000850 The parties both attended their scheduled appointment with Family Court Services (“FCS”) on 8/2/24, and the FCS Report & Recommendations were filed on 8/14/24. Father filed a Statement of Agreement with the FCS Recommendations; Mother filed a Statement of Disagreement with the FCS Recommendations. Based on review and consideration of all of the filings by the parties, as well as the FCS Report & Recommendations, the Court finds that it is in the best interests of the children to adopt the FCS recommendations, as modified below: 1 The parents shall share joint legal custody of all three children. The parents shall share in the responsibility and confer in good faith on matters concerning the children’s health, education and welfare. Both parents shall have access to the children’s school, medical, mental health and dental records and the right to consult with professionals who are providing services to the children. The parents shall share joint physical custody of all three children. The children shall continue to live in Marin County, unless another location is agreed up by the parents. The children shall continue to live with both parents on a 2-2-5 schedule where they are with Mother every Monday and Tuesday night, with Father every Wednesday and Thursday night, and with each parent on alternate weekends from Friday to Monday. Any changes to the schedule shall occur as agreed upon by the parents. Holidays and vacations shall be shared equally by the parents on an agreed upon schedule. The parents shall use an agreed-upon Parenting App, such as Our Family Wizard, to communicate with each other about the children. 8 The parents shall engage in peaceful contact only in the presence of the children. 9 The children shall not be exposed to any verbal or physical abuse. 10. Neither parent shall make any disparaging comments about the other parent in the presence of the children, or allow others to do so. 11. Both parents shall ensure that the children get to school on time when in their care. SO ORDERED. Child Support Mother requests, and Father agrees to, guideline child support. Mother’s Income & Expense Declaration (“I&E”) states her average monthly income of $16,330 (but that appears to be more Page 2 of 5 FL0000850 than wages), with monthly expenses of $6,143. She has little debt, and claims $17,500 in deposit accounts, $69,935 in securities, and “TBD” re: real and personal property. Mother filed no support calculations or coversheet. Father’s I&E states his average monthly income of $21,206 (with his 2023 W-2 showing significant additional earnings that should be dealt with by bonus schedule), and monthly expenses of $14422, including monthly installment payments of $2,738. He also claims cash in deposit accounts of $7,998, nominal securities, and about $395,000 in real and personal property). Based on the above, for support purposes, the Court uses the agreed-upon 50%-50% timeshare, with Father claiming 2 exemptions of the children, for a total of 3 exemptions, and Mother claiming one of the children for a total of 2 exemptions. Father contributes $595/month to his 401(k) plan and $152/month for health insurance. For Mother, the Court accepts $12,026/month in wages based on her hourly rate, with additional income to be captured by bonus schedule. She contributes $1,488/month to her 401(k) plan, and pays $190/month for health insurance. Based on the Dissomaster support calculation run by the Court and attached as Exhibit “A”, t guideline child support payable by Father is $1,216/month, including $203 for Theo; $398 for Ravi, and $614 for Hugo. Therefore, the Court orders as follows: 1. Commencing June 1, 2024, Father shall pay to Mother as and for monthly guideline child support, the sum of $1,216 ($203 for Theo; $$398 for Ravi and $614 for Hugo). Said support shall be payable by the 15‘ of each month. Father shall pay additional child support on any income he receives in excess of $21,250/month, calculated pursuant to the attached “Father Annual bonus Wage Report.” Mother’s income in excess of $12,026/month shall also be subject to the attached “Mother Annual Bonus Wages Report. The parties shall “true up” their respective bonus income each 6 months, unless agreed otherwise. Child support shall continue until (a) each child reaches the age of 18, or if still a full- time student in high school at age 18, until the child reaches age 19 or graduates from high school, whichever first occurs; (2) the child dies; or (3) the child is emancipated. The amount of child support is modifiable if there is a change of circumstances for either party. Add-on Expenses 4 The parties shall share equally all reasonable uninsured medical expenses and dental expenses incurred on behalf of their minor children, and childcare costs related to either party’s employment or reasonably necessary education or training for employment skills. The parties are ordered to comply with the provisions of Family Code 4063 in seeking reimbursement for uninsured medical and dental expenses, and a copy of the NOTICE OF RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES — Health-Care Costs Page 3 of 5 SE a DSSS ES RE SS BS FL0000850 and Reimbursement Procedures shall be attached to the Order After Hearing. These provisions shall apply to reimbursement for childcare expenses as well. Spousal Support Mother requests Father pay her pendente lite spousal support. Based on Exhibit “A,” guideline temporary spousal support payable by Father to Mother is $526/month. Therefore: 5. Commencing June 1, 2024, Father shall pay to Mother the sum of $526/month, as and for spousal support. Said support shall be payable by the 1‘ day of each month, and shall continue until further order of the Court. 6. Spousal support is neither taxable to Mother nor deductible by Father. Attorneys’ Fees and Costs Mother requests the Court order Husband to pay her $10,000 as and for attorneys’ fees and costs. Pursuant to Family Code § 2030(a)(1), it is the Court’s obligation to ensure both parties have access to legal representation to preserve each party’s rights. Before awarding attorneys’ fees, the Court must consider the relative circumstances of the parties and find (1) an award is appropriate; (2) there is a disparity in access to funds to retain counsel; and (3) one party is able to pay for the legal representation of both parties. (Fam C § 2030(a)(2). ) In this case, although Father’s income is higher, his expenses are also considerably higher than Mother’s expenses. Moreover, it appears that Mother has funds more readily accessible to her in her deposit account. Therefore, the Court denies Mother’s request for attorneys’ fees and costs, but reserves jurisdiction with regard to the ultimate allocation of attorneys’ fees and costs. Sale of Marital Residence It appears that the parties are in agreement regarding sale of the home. They should meet and confer to see if they can reach an agreement on the details and timing of the sale and what, if any funds, should be held in escrow. SO ORDERED. Counsel for Father to prepare the Order. TEMPORARILY, under current orders, litigants who require the assistance of a Spanish language interpreter shall appear in person. Interpreter services via video technology are currently not available. Any party contesting the ruling and requesting oral argument shall appear in person or remotely through Zoom either by video or telephone. Please follow the guidelines set forth on the court website at www.marin.courts.ca.go The Zoom appearance information is as follows: Page 4 of 5 Re FL0000850 August 2024 at 09:00 AM Join Zoom Meeting Zoom link for Courtroom D Family Law 161 0592888 passcode 841800 Meeting ID: 161 059 2888 Passcode: 841800 If you are only able to appear by phone you may dial the phone number below, follow the prompts and enter the meeting ID and passcode. +1-669-254-5252 US (San Jose) Meeting ID: 161 059 2888 Passcode: 841800 If a party and/or counsel elects to appear over Zoom they must follow proper Zoom etiquette. This includes joining the call five minutes early, speaking only one at a time, avoiding disruptions, and wearing proper attire appropriate for a court environment. Parties must act and speak in a professional and respectful manner as though they are in an actual courtroom. If a party or counsel is unable to follow proper Zoom etiquette, the court may halt the hearing and order the parties to return in person. Page 5 of 5 ‘TTORNEY (NAME AND ADDRESS>: TELEPHONE NO: Superior Court Of The State of California,County of |COURT NAME: ISTREET ADDRESS: MAILING ADDRESS: BRANCH NAME: California ‘Trorvey For: Father DISSOMASTER REPORT "ASE NUMBER: 2024, Monthly Input Data Father Mother Guideline (2024) Cash Flow Analysis Father Mother Number of children 2 Nets (adjusted) Guideline % time with Second Parent 50% 50% Father 14,454 Payment (cost)/benefit (1,742) 1,693 Filing status HH/MLA HH/MLA Mother 9,136 Net spendable income 12,712 10,878 # Federal exemptions 3 Total 23,590 % combined spendable 53.9% 46.1% Wages + salary 21,250 12,026 Support (Nondeductible) Total taxes 6,644 2,700 401(k) employee contrib 595. 1,488 CS Payor Father Comb. net spendable 23,590 Self-employment income 0 Presumed 1,216 Proposed Other taxable income 0 Basic CS 1,216 Payment (cost)/benefit (1,451) 1,416 Short-term cap. gains 0 Add-ons oO Net spendable income 12,793 11,011 Long-term cap. gains Presumed Per Kid NSI change from gdl 81 133 Other gains (and losses) Theo 203 % combined spendable 53.7% 46.3% Ordinary dividends Ravi 398 % of saving over gdl 38.1% 61.9% Tax. interest received Hugo 614 Total taxes 6,853 2,277 Social Security received SS Payor Father Comb. net spendable 23,804 Unemployment compensation Marin 526 Percent change 9% Operating losses Total 1,742 4 Settings Changed Ca. operating loss adj. Proposed, tactic 9 Father, State Support Paid Is Deductible, current marriage: Nondeductible Roy, partnerships, S corp, trusts CS Payor Father Father, State Support Paid Is Deductible, Rental income Presumed 1,071 other marriages: Nondeductible Misc ordinary tax. inc. Basic CS 1,074 Mother, State Support Paid Is Deductible, Other nontaxable income Add-ons current marriage: Nondeductible Mother, State Support Paid Is Deductible, New-spouse income Presumed Per Kid other marriages: Nondeductible SS paid other marriage Theo 175 CS paid other relationship Ravi 311 Adj. to income (ATI) Hugo 585 1.3% elective PTE payment SS Payor Father Ptr Support Pd. other P'ships. Marin 380 Health insurance 152 190 Total 1,451 Qual. Bus. Inc, Ded. Savings 214 ttemized deductions Mother 81 Other medical expenses Father 132 Property tax expenses Total releases to Ded. interest expense Mother Charitable contribution Miscellaneous itemized State sales tax paid Required union dues Cr. for Pd. Sick and Fam. L. Mandatory retirement Hardship deduction o on Other gdl. adjustments AMT info (IRS Form 6251) Child support add-ons cfir (Rev. Mar, 2024> DissoMaster™ 2024-1 DissoMaster Report (Monthly) Page | of 2 8/22/2024 2:40 PM ‘yi ‘TTORNEY (NAME AND ADDRESS): ‘TELEPHONE NO: Superior Court Of The State of California,County of >COURT NAME: STREET ADDRESS: MAILING ADDRESS: BRANCH NAME: California rrorney ror: Father Father Annual Bonus Wages Report case NUMBER: 2024 Yearly "R" denotes that Father is a recipient for the corresponding support "CS%" is the percentage of Bonus paid as additional Child Support "SS%" is the percentage of Bonus paid as additional Spousal Support Total columns indicate the Total support due, support on reported income plus the incremental support due on additional income. Father's Gross Basic CS% Basic CS Marin SS% Marin SS Total Basic CS Total SS Total Support CS+SS Bonus 10,000 10.99 1,099 10.25) 1,025) 15,690 7,342 23,033 20,000) 10.89 2,177) 10.21 2,042 16,768 8,360 25,128 30,000] 10.66) 3,199 10.06, 3,017 17,790 9,334 27,124 40,000) 10.75> 4,301 10.20) 4,079 18,892 10,396 29,288 50,000) 10,84 5,418 10.33, 5,167 20,010 11,485 31,494 60,000) 10.88 6,530) 10.44) 6,261 21,121 12,578 33,700 70,000 10.91 7,636, 10.51 7,360 22,227 13,677 35,904 80,000) 10.92 8,737 10.58 | 8,463 23,328 14,780 38,108 90,000) 10.92 9,832) 10.63) 9,571 24,424 15,888 40,312 100,000 10.92! 10,923 10.68) 10,683 25,514 17,000 42,514 110,000 10.92; 12,009 10.73) 11,799 26,600 18,116 44,717 120,000 10.90) 13,084 10.76, 12,911 21,675 19,228 46,903 130,000 10.88 | 14,146 10.78 | 14,019) 28,738 20,337 49,074 140,000, 10.86) 15,205) 10.81 15,131 29,796 21,448 51,245 150,000 10.84 16,260 10.83) 16,248 | 30,851 22,565 53,417 160,000 10.82) 17,312 10.85, 17,366) 31,903 23,684 55,586 170,000 10.80 18,360 10.88) 18,488 32,951 24,805 57,756 180,000 10.78: 19,406 10.90) 19,614 33,997 25,931 59,928 190,000 10.76) 20,453 | 10.92) 20,746 35,044 27,063 62,107 200,000 10.75) 21,496) 10.94) 21,881 36,087 28,198 64,285 210,000) 10.73) 22,536 10.96 23,018 37,127 29,336 66,463 220,000) 10.72) 23,574 10.98) 24,159 38,165 30,476 68,641 230,000) 10.70) 24,609) 11.00) 25,301 39,200 31,618 70,818 240,000) 10.68 25,641 11.02) 26,446 40,232 32,763 72,995, 250,000) 10.67) 26,671 11.04) 27,593] 41,262 33,910 75,172 260,000) 10.65) 27,679) 11.05) 28,721 42,270 35,038 77,308 270,000) 10.62: 28,684) 11.06) 29,850) 43,275 36,167 79,442 280,000) 10,60) 29,687) 11.06) 30,981 44,278 37,298 81,576 290,000 10.58) 30,688 11.07) 32,113 45,279 38,431 83,710 300,000) 10.56) 31,687 11.08 | 33,248) 46,278 39,565 85,843 efir (Rev. Mar, 2024) Father Annual Bonus Wages Report Page 1 of 2 DissoMaster™ 2024-1 8/22/2024 2:41 PM Ay ®; \TTORNEY (NAME AND ADDRESS>: ‘TELEPHONE NO: Superior Court Of The State of California,County of ICOURT NAME: [STREET ADDRESS: MAILING ADDRESS: BRANCH NAME: California Trorney ror: Father Mother Annual Bonus Wages Report "ASE NUMBER: 2024 Yearly "R" denotes that Mother is a recipient for the corresponding support "CS%" is the percentage of Bonus paid as additional Child Support “SS%" is the percentage of Bonus paid as additional Spousal Support Total columns indicate the Total support due, support on reported income plus the incremental support due on additional income. Mother's Gross Basic CS% Basic CS Marin SS% Marin SS. Total Basic CS Total SS ‘Total Support CS+SS. Bonus 10,000 13,96) 1,396 14.66 1,466) 13,196 R 4,85LR 18,047 R 20,000 13.89> 2,777 14.71 2,943 11,814R 3,374 R 15,188 R 30,000 14,10) 4,229 15.07 4,521 10,362 R <796K 12,158 R 40,000 14.32) 5,730 15.45) 6,180 8,862 R 138 R 8,999 R 50,000) 14.43) 7,216 12.63) 6,317) 7,376 R 0 7,316 R 60,000 14.47) 8,679 10.53>6,317 5,912R 0 5,912R 70,000 14.46, 10,119 9.02) 6317 4472 0 4,472 RK 80,000 14,34) 11,469 7.90 6,317 3,122R 0 3,122 90,000 14.14 12,729 7.02 6317 1,862 R 1,862 R 100,000 13.85: 13,849 6.32 6,317 742K 742R 110,000 13.60) 14,963 5.74 6,317 372 372 120,000 13.46; 16,148 5.26 6,317 1,557 3557 130,000 13.35: 17,360 4.86 6,317 2,769 2,769 140,000 13.26 18,559 451 6,317 3,968 3,968 150,000 13,13) 19,693 4.21 6,317 5,102 5,102 160,000 13.01 20,821 3.95 6,317 6,230 6,230 170,000 12.91 21,944 3.72 6,317 7,353 7,353 180,000 12.81 23,062 3.51 6317 8471 8,471 190,000 12.72 24,176 3.32 6,317 9,585 9,585, 200,000 12.64 25,285, 3.16 6,317 10,694 10,694 210,000 12.57 26,389 3.52 7,386 11,798 1,069 12,867 220,000 12.50 27,490 3.86 8,488 12,898 2,171 15,069 230,000) 12.43 28,586 417 9,592 13,995 3,275 17,269 240,000) 12.36 29,676 4.46 10,697 15,084 4,380 19,464 250,000) 12.30 30,754 4,72 11,798 16,163 5,480 21,643 260,000) 12.24 31,829 4.96 12,901 17,238 6,584 23,822 270,000 12.19 32,901 5.19 14,008 18,310 7,691 26,001 280,000) 12.13 33,969 5.40 15,118 19,378 8,801 28,179 290,000) 12.08 35,034 5.60 16,231 20,443 9,914 30,357 300,000) 12.03 36,097 5.78 17,347 21,506 11,030 32,536 cf (Rev. Mar, 2024) DissoMaster™ 2024-4 Mother Annual Bonus Wages Report Kabel A ff 2 Page 2 of 2 8/22/2024 2:41 PM
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 all parties. STAY. The McDonald matter remains stayed pending appeal. The Court notes that the parties in the Smith case recently submitted a Stipulation and Order seeking a stay of that matter. This was returned by the clerk due the proposed order not being lodged separately. Additionally, the Stipulation was not fax filed and did not contain original signatures. STAFFING AGENCY EMPLOYEES. The Court anticipates receiving a Stipulation and Order in the McDonald case that seeks to change the Court’s previous ruling that employes placed at SPI by staffing agencies fall under the class definitions. The Court has an obligation to all class members and intends to discuss the reasons for this change at today’s hearing. The Court expects that any Stipulation presented will clearly provide valid reasons for this proposed change. DISCOVERY. The Courts notes Plaintiff McDonald’s frustration with not receiving discovery from SPI during the stay. The Court is not able to rule on any discovery issues during the stay and parties are not obligated to provide discovery during the stay. FURTHER CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE DATE. The Court intends to set a further Case Management Conference and will discuss available dates with counsel.
FLORES VS. LANDRAU Case Number: 24CV-0204449 Tentative Ruling on Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal: An Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal issued on July 2, 2024 to Plaintiff Eladio Flores, in pro per, for failure to timely serve the complaint and failure to timely prosecute. “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 6, 2024. There is still no Proof of Service of Summons on file. Plaintiff did not file a response to the Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal. Monetary sanctions have already been imposed for failure to timely serve and it appears that Plaintiff has made no efforts to effect proper service. Without sufficient excuse for the delay and because previous sanctions appear to have been ineffective, the matter is DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to Gov. Code § § 68608(b). All future dates are vacated. The clerk is directed to close the file.
DATE: 08/29/24 TIME: 9:00 A.M. DEPT: L CASE NO: FL0001031 PRESIDING: HON. MARK A. TALAMANTES REPORTER: CLERK: JENN CHARIFA PETITIONER: JAMES BANKS and RESPONDENT: JENE FORD NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: REQUEST FOR ORDER — VISITATION RULING Petitioner James Banks filed a parentage petition on June 20, 2024. He also filed a Request for Order for custody and visitation on the same date. There is no indication that the papers were served on Respondent Jene Ford. Hearing on the RFO cannot proceed until Respondent is properly served with the Summons, petition and moving papers, and proof of service is filed. CCP §1005(b) requires service of an RFO within 16 court days before a court hearing. A proof of service must be filed as proof that the responding party was properly served with the moving papers. The matter is continued to October 3, 2024. at 9:00 a.m. in Dept. L, to allow more time for Petitioner to serve the RFO and any related papers upon Respondent. Petitioner is directed to Legal Self-Help Services, located at the Hall of Justice, 3501 Civic Center Drive, on the Court floor for assistance with any questions he has regarding how to serve the papers. In person drop-in services are scheduled 8:30-noon on Tuesday — Thursday. Email service is from 8:30 a.m.-3 p.m. Monday — Friday. Phone consultations are available 8:30-noon, Monday — Friday, and 1 p.m. —3 on Tuesday and Thursday via selfhelp@marin.courts.ca.gov). Zoom clinics are available 8:30-noon, Monday — Friday. https://www.marincourt.org/legal_self_help_services.htm Parties must comply with Marin County Superior Court Local Rules, Rule 7.12(B), (C), which provide that If a party wants to present oral argument, the party must contact the Court at (415) 444-7046 and all opposing parties by 4:00 p.m. the court day preceding the scheduled hearing. Notice may be by telephone or in person to all other parties that argument is being requested (i.e., it is not necessary to speak with counsel or parties directly.) Unless the Court senna ea a FL0001031 and all parties have been notified of a request to present oral argument, no oral argument will be permitted except by order of the Court. In the event no party requests oral argument in accordance with Rule 7.12(C), the tentative ruling shall become the order of the court. IT IS ORDERED that video appearances though Zoom are permitted unless a party is ordered to appear in court. In-person appearances are also permitted. Evidentiary hearings shall be in-person in Department L. The parties may access Department L for video conference via a link on the court website. FURTHER ORDERED that the parties are responsible for ensuring that they have a good connection and that they are available for the hearing. If the connection is inadequate, the Court may proceed with the hearing in the party’s absence. Any party contesting the ruling and requesting oral argument shall appear in person or remotely through Zoom either by video or telephone. Please follow the guidelines set forth on the court website at www.marin.courts.ca.gov The Zoom appearance information is as follows: August 2024, 09:00 AM Join Zoom Meeting https://www.zoomgov.com/j/1610321093?pwd=Y W5DaGY 2ekZsSUFNbES1T | JsRTMvZz09 Meeting ID: 161 032 1093 Passcode: 991058 If you are only able to appear by phone you may dial the phone number below, follow the prompts and enter the meeting ID and passcode. +1-669-254-5252 Meeting ID: 161 032 1093 Passcode: 991058 If a party and/or counsel elects to appear over Zoom they must follow proper Zoom etiquette. This includes joining the call five minutes early, speaking only one at a time, avoiding disruptions, and wearing proper attire appropriate for a court environment. Parties must act and speak in a professional and respectful manner as though they are in an actual courtroom. If a party or counsel is unable to follow proper Zoom etiquette, the court may halt the hearing and order the parties to return in person. Page 2 of 2
22FL45949 SMITH v SMTIH Petitioner is to schedule a Default prove up hearing prior to the next Case Management Conference scheduled for January 8, 2025, at 2:00 p.m. in Dept. 4.