Valadez, Juan Antonio Jr , filed a(n) Divorce,Separation - Family case against Garcia Lopez, Consuelo Azeneth , in the jurisdiction of Bexar County, TX, . Bexar County, TX Superior Courts with 131st, District Court presiding.
131st, District Court
October 03, 2022
January 17, 2024
Bexar County, TX
Valadez, Juan Antonio Jr
Garcia Lopez, Consuelo Azeneth
Garcia, Christopher (Attorney)
| Date | Type | Description |
|---|---|---|
| February 02, 2023 | Docket Event | JUDGES DOCKET NOTES |
| January 10, 2023 | Docket Event | NOTICE OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT |
| January 06, 2023 | Docket Event | AFFIDAVIT OF |
| January 06, 2023 | Docket Event | CERTIFICATE OF LAST KNOWN MAILING ADDRESS FOR: |
| January 06, 2023 | Docket Event | HEARING/TRIAL CRT REPORTER ASSIGNED |
| December 09, 2022 | Docket Event | RETURN OF SERVICE - SUCCESSFUL |
| November 08, 2022 | Docket Event | REQUEST FOR SERVICE AND PROCESS |
| October 03, 2022 | Docket Event | New Cases Filed (OCA) |
| October 03, 2022 | Docket Event | PETITION |
DATE: 09/04/24 TIME: 9:00 A.M. DEPT: B CASE NO: FL0000636 PRESIDING: COM. JANET L. FRANKEL REPORTER: CLERK: ALEX URTON PETITIONER: MILER LILLIA TORRES and RESPONDENT: JULIO CESAR CASTILLO NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: REQUEST FOR ORDER — CHILD/SPOUSAL SUPPORT/VISITATION; PROPERTY CONTROL; TEMPORARY SPOUSAL SUPPORT RULING This matter comes before the court on Petitioner/Mother Request for Order (RFO) filed July 9, 2024, seeking child custody, child visitation, child support, temporary spousal support, property control, and attorney’s fees. CUSTODY AND VISITATION - RESOLVED BY AGREEMENT The parents met with Family Court Services child recommending mediation counselors and reached agreements regarding custody and visitation of their minor child, Santiago, born September 19, 2008, on August 7, 2024. Those agreements were filed with the court on August 19, 2024. PROPERTY CONTROL Mother seeks exclusive use of the family residence at 1600 Hotchkin Drive in Novato. Mother asserts that the parties separated in December 2015, and Mother has continued to reside in the family residence, paying the house bills and expenses (carrying costs). Father lives in Vallejo and does not oppose Mother’s request for exclusive use if she pays the carrying costs. The court grants Mother’s request for exclusive use of the family residence, at 1600 Hotchkin Drive, Novato. The court further orders Mother to pay the carrying costs for the family residence pending further court order. The court reserves jurisdiction over all claims for reimbursements, charges, or credits related to the family residence. CHILD SUPPORT / PENDENTE LITE SPOUSAL SUPPORT / ATTORNEY’S FEES Mother seeks child support and pendente lite spousal support pursuant to guideline, and attorney’s fees. Mother’s RFO requests $7,500 in attorney’s fees (see page 4 of 4). Mother’s attorney’s declaration in support of Mother’s request seeks $10,000 in attorney’s fees. SRE a ESS SS FL0000636 In her income and expense declaration, Mother asserts that her income from employment (salary plus commissions/overtime) averages $5,645 per month, plus an average of $87 per month from state disability. She states she pays $75 per month in union dues. She claims $4,110 per month in expenses, including the mortgage on the family residence in the amount of $2,130 per month. Mother does not provide any paystubs, tax returns, or other documents to support her income and expense declaration, as required by the local rules. The court notes that Father did submit a copy of Mother’s 2023 tax return, which tells a different story regarding Mother’s monthly income. Mother’s request for child support, spousal support, and attorney’s fees is denied, without prejudice, due to Mother’s failure to comply with MCR Fam 7.13. Counsel for Father shall prepare the formal order after hearing. TEMPORARILY, UNDER CURRENT ORDERS, LITIGANTS WHO REQUIRE THE ASSISTANCE OF A SPANISH LANGUAGE INTERPRETER ARE REQUIRED TO APPEAR IN PERSON. INTERPRETER SERVICES FOR PERSONS APPEARING VIA ZOOM ARE 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.gov The Zoom appearance information is as follows: September 2024, 9:00 a.m. Join Zoom Meeting Attps:/marin-courts-ca- gov.zoomgoy.com/j/1610592888? pwa=bDZNRVpPOy9SUGhTZEpFMONAMnZJdz09 Meeting ID: 161 241 5928 Passcode: 997712 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: 161 241 5928 Passcode: 997712 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 a
DATE: 09/04/24 TIME: 9:00 A.M. DEPT: B CASE NO: FL0000636 PRESIDING: COM. JANET L. FRANKEL REPORTER: CLERK: ALEX URTON PETITIONER: MILER LILLIA TORRES and RESPONDENT: JULIO CESAR CASTILLO NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: REQUEST FOR ORDER — CHILD/SPOUSAL SUPPORT/VISITATION; PROPERTY CONTROL; TEMPORARY SPOUSAL SUPPORT RULING This matter comes before the court on Petitioner/Mother Request for Order (RFO) filed July 9, 2024, seeking child custody, child visitation, child support, temporary spousal support, property control, and attorney’s fees. CUSTODY AND VISITATION - RESOLVED BY AGREEMENT The parents met with Family Court Services child recommending mediation counselors and reached agreements regarding custody and visitation of their minor child, Santiago, born September 19, 2008, on August 7, 2024. Those agreements were filed with the court on August 19, 2024. PROPERTY CONTROL Mother seeks exclusive use of the family residence at 1600 Hotchkin Drive in Novato. Mother asserts that the parties separated in December 2015, and Mother has continued to reside in the family residence, paying the house bills and expenses (carrying costs). Father lives in Vallejo and does not oppose Mother’s request for exclusive use if she pays the carrying costs. The court grants Mother’s request for exclusive use of the family residence, at 1600 Hotchkin Drive, Novato. The court further orders Mother to pay the carrying costs for the family residence pending further court order. The court reserves jurisdiction over all claims for reimbursements, charges, or credits related to the family residence. CHILD SUPPORT / PENDENTE LITE SPOUSAL SUPPORT / ATTORNEY’S FEES Mother seeks child support and pendente lite spousal support pursuant to guideline, and attorney’s fees. Mother’s RFO requests $7,500 in attorney’s fees (see page 4 of 4). Mother’s attorney’s declaration in support of Mother’s request seeks $10,000 in attorney’s fees. SRE a ESS SS FL0000636 In her income and expense declaration, Mother asserts that her income from employment (salary plus commissions/overtime) averages $5,645 per month, plus an average of $87 per month from state disability. She states she pays $75 per month in union dues. She claims $4,110 per month in expenses, including the mortgage on the family residence in the amount of $2,130 per month. Mother does not provide any paystubs, tax returns, or other documents to support her income and expense declaration, as required by the local rules. The court notes that Father did submit a copy of Mother’s 2023 tax return, which tells a different story regarding Mother’s monthly income. Mother’s request for child support, spousal support, and attorney’s fees is denied, without prejudice, due to Mother’s failure to comply with MCR Fam 7.13. Counsel for Father shall prepare the formal order after hearing. TEMPORARILY, UNDER CURRENT ORDERS, LITIGANTS WHO REQUIRE THE ASSISTANCE OF A SPANISH LANGUAGE INTERPRETER ARE REQUIRED TO APPEAR IN PERSON. INTERPRETER SERVICES FOR PERSONS APPEARING VIA ZOOM ARE 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.gov The Zoom appearance information is as follows: September 2024, 9:00 a.m. Join Zoom Meeting Attps:/marin-courts-ca- gov.zoomgoy.com/j/1610592888? pwa=bDZNRVpPOy9SUGhTZEpFMONAMnZJdz09 Meeting ID: 161 241 5928 Passcode: 997712 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: 161 241 5928 Passcode: 997712 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 a
22FL46214 LOWELL v The matter is set for a Mandatory Settlement LOWELL Conference on January 8, 2025, at 8:30 a.m. in Dept. 4. MSC statements are to be filed by 3:00 p.m. on December 30, 2024. Court to notify the parties.
Parties, and counsel if represented, are ordered to appear personally or remotely for settlement conference. 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.
FLORES VS. SWIFT Case Number: 24CV-0204653 Tentative Ruling on Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal: An Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal issued on August 8, 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 29, 2024. There is still no valid 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: 09/06/24 TIME: 9:00 A.M. DEPT: D CASE NO: FL0001091 PRESIDING: HON. BETH S. JORDAN REPORTER: CLERK: STACY BOND. PETITIONER: DIANA ROQUE CARDONA and RESPONDENT: ALEXANDER MANSFIELD NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: REQUEST FOR ORDER — CHILD CUSTODY/VISITATION RULING This matter is set for hearing on Respondent/Father’s 7/17/24 Request for Order (“RFO”) to modify child custody/visitation with respect to the parties’ daughter, Izabella (“Izzy” DOB S-25- 18). Mother filed her Responsive Declaration on 8/26/24 opposing Father’s requests. The parties met separately with Family Court Services (“FCS”) on 8/22/24, and FCS filed their Report & Recommendations with the Court on 8/29/24. The current custody orders were made in Sonoma County on 2/22/21 and award sole legal and physical custody of Izabella to Petitioner/Mother, with Father having visits with Izabella every Tuesday from 2:30 to 7:30 and every Friday from 3:00 pm through Saturday at 3:00 pm. There is a history of involvement with Children and Family Services. Father is seeking joint physical and legal custody of Izzy; he states that when the custody order was made, the parties intended to marry and be a family, but circumstances have changed, and he has struggled with visitations and communications with Mother. He has not seen Izzy since May of 2023. Mother states that she has been in therapy and working with the Center for Domestic Peace since the beginning of 2020, and that Izzy has been traumatized by Father and has received therapy for the last year as a result. Mother further states that she has tried to work with Father to visit with Izzy, but Father refused to accept her boundaries, has harassed her, verbally abused her and showed up at her house uninvited. This creates additional trauma and tension for her and Izzy. The Court notes that, although Mother attempted to get a restraining order against Father, the request was denied by the Sonoma County Court. After consideration of the parties’ pleadings, as well as the FCS Report & Recommendations, the Court finds that it is in the best interests of Izzy to adopt the recommendations of FCS, as modified below: ieee FL0001091 Parental Responsibilities: Mother shall continue to have sole legal custody of Izabella. Mother shall make decisions about matters concerning Izabella’s health, education and welfare. However, both parents shall have access to Izabella’s school, medical, mental health, and dental records and the right to consult with professionals who are providing services to her. 2. Mother shall continue to have sole physical custody of Izabella. Timeshare Schedule 3. Izabella shall continue to live with Mother and she shall have professionally supervised visits with Father through Rally one time each week for up to one hour. Collateral Issues 4. Izabella shall continue in therapy and all recommendations by her therapist shall be followed. The parents shall engage in peaceful contact only in the presence of Izabella. Izabella shall not be exposed to any verbal or physical abuse. Neither parent shall make any disparaging comments about the other parent in the presence of Izabella, or allow others to do so. SO ORDERED. The Court will prepare the Order per Rule 5.125, California Rules of Court 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.gov The Zoom appearance information is as follows: September 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 Page 2 of 3 FL0001091 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 3 of 3 RES RS SSS SC
22FL46396 JOHNSON v Custody and visitation issues have been resolved. JOHNSON The matter awaits entry of judgment. The next Case Management Conference (CMC) is scheduled for January 15, 2025, at 2:00 p.m. in Dept. 4. At the next CMC, the court will consider scheduling a Mandatory Settlement Conference to resolve any remaining issues.
19FL44342 CITRON v SIMONS The matter is scheduled for an OSC re Dismissal pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure 583.310 at the next Case Management Conference scheduled for November 6, 2024, at 2:00 p.m. in Dept. 4. The Court to notify the parties.