Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 11

1 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

2 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

3 UNIFIED FAMILY COURT

5
)
6 CHRISTOFFER STANFORD THYGESEN, ) Case Number: FDV-19-814465
)
7 Petitioner ) Hearing Date: January 5, 2021
)
8 VS. ) Hearing Time: 9:00 AM
)
9 KAILIN WANG, ) Department: 404
)
10 Respondent ) Presiding: VICTOR M. HWANG
)
11 )

12 REQUEST FOR ORDER RE: FINDING UNDER CCP 391(B)(1) THAT RESPONDENT IS A
13 VEXATIOUS LITIGANT & FOR PREFILING ORDER
14 TENTATIVE RULING

15 Having read and considered the pleadings, declarations, and other evidence submitted in this
16 matter, the Court makes the following findings and orders:
17 In the Court’s prior tentative ruling for hearing on October 22, 2020, the Court expressed a
18 reluctance to find Respondent to be a vexatious litigant where “all adversely determined lawsuits have

19 occurred outside of the State of California.” However, in reviewing CCP 391(b)(1) more closely, it is
20 evident that the legislature considered this issue and in a 1990 amendment to that section, specifically
21 expanded the definition of “litigation” to include actions in any state or federal court (superseding prior
22 precedent limiting consideration to in-state litigation).

23 In excluding Respondent’s out-of-state actions, the Court continued this matter to consider
24 Respondent’s filings in this case to determine if she would meet the definition of a vexatious litigant
25 based on her actions in this case alone. As noted previously, the Court was reluctant to do so based upon
26 the fact that the majority of her motions in this case related to custody and visitation of a young child.

27

28

29
1 In reconsidering the adverse decisions against Respondent in out of state proceedings, in

2 combination with her adverse rulings related to the deposition and her Order to Show Cause for

3 Contempt, the Court finds that there is a sufficient basis to designate Respondent a vexatious litigant.

4 However, as a matter of due process, as arguments raised by Petitioner for purposes of context are

5 intertwined with the pending OSC for Contempt, the Court will continue this request to have Respondent

6 deemed a vexatious litigant until the OSC has been resolved and Respondent may fully respond without

7 fear of self-incrimination.

8 Accordingly, unless Petitioner is inclined to dismiss the OSC for Contempt with prejudice, this

9 matter will be continued to the next available court date of April 13, 2021 at 9:00 AM in Dept. 404.

10

11

12 INSTRUCTIONS AFTER RECEIPT OF TENTATIVE RULING:

13 If either party disagrees with the Tentative Ruling set forth above and / or wishes to present
14 additional argument, that party must contact the Court Clerk in Dept. 404 as well as the other party

15 (unless there is a restraining order) or the other party’s attorney (if they have one) by Monday, January

16 4, 2021 at 4:00 PM to notify the Court Clerk and the other side of their objection to the Tentative Ruling.

17 Failure to state that there is an objection and notify the other side and the Court by this deadline will result
18 in the adoption of the tentative ruling as an order of the Court.

19 If either party notifies both the Court and the other party (unless there is a restraining order) or the

20 other party’s attorney (if they have one) of an objection to the Tentative Ruling, then the tentative ruling
21 will not be adopted as an order of the Court and the parties must appear by video, by phone, or in person

22 on Tuesday, January 5, 2021 at 9:00 AM in Dept. 404. If a party chooses to appear by video or by

23 phone, that party must abide by the Notice and Instructions for Remote Appearances in San

24 Francisco Family Court set forth above on page 2 of this document.

25

26

27

28

29
1 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

2 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

3 UNIFIED FAMILY COURT

5
)
6 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, ) Case Number: FCS-15-351235
)
7 Petitioner ) Hearing Date: January 5, 2021
)
8 VS. ) Hearing Time: 9:00 AM
)
9 HERSHEL HALE JR, ) Department: 404
)
10 Respondent ) Presiding: VICTOR M. HWANG
)
11 )

12 REQUEST FOR ORDER FOR CHANGE OF CHILD CUSTODY, DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ORDER
13 TENTATIVE RULING
14 Having read and considered the pleadings, declarations, and other evidence submitted in this

15 matter, the Court makes the following findings and orders:


16 Appearances required. The parties must appear in-person, by video, or by phone. Video
17 appearances are strongly preferred. If a party chooses to appear by video or by phone, that party must
18 abide by the Notice and Instructions for Remote Appearances in San Francisco Family Court set forth

19 above on page 2 of this document.


20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29
1 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

2 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

3 UNIFIED FAMILY COURT

5
)
6 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, ) Case Number: FCS-18-352967
)
7 Petitioner ) Hearing Date: January 5, 2021
)
8 VS. ) Hearing Time: 9:00 AM
)
9 AARON O EBINGER, ) Department: 404
)
10 Respondent ) Presiding: VICTOR M. HWANG
)
11 )

12 REQUEST FOR ORDER FOR CHANGE OF CHANGE OF CHILD CUSTODY, VISITATION


13 (PARENTING TIME)
14 TENTATIVE RULING

15 Having read and considered the pleadings, declarations, and other evidence submitted in this
16 matter, the Court makes the following findings and orders:
17 The Court grants Ms. Griffith’s “Proposed Time Share Arrangements” and “Holidays and
18 Vacations” proposals with the following modifications:

19 • The Court will phase in Ms. Griffith’s overnights. The Court will immediately terminate
20 visitation through Rally and order that Ms. Griffith’s may have from Monday pick up at
21 daycare to Tuesday morning drop off at day-care.
22 • Beginning February 3, 2021, Ms. Griffiths will have from Monday after day care to

23 Wednesday drop off at day care.


24 • Beginning March 3, 2021, Ms. Griffiths will pick up the minor from Mr. Ebinger at his
25 home at 4pm and have custody until Wednesday morning drop off at daycare.
26 • Mother will continue with three NA/AA meetings per week and maintain proof of

27 attendance.
28 • Mother will continue with both therapy and comply with medical treatment until a
29 medical professional deems her course of treatment to be complete.
1 • Both sides will comply strictly with San Francisco Public Health orders regarding

2 sheltering-in-place.

5 INSTRUCTIONS AFTER RECEIPT OF TENTATIVE RULING:

6 If either party disagrees with the Tentative Ruling set forth above and / or wishes to present

7 additional argument, that party must contact the Court Clerk in Dept. 404 as well as the other party

8 (unless there is a restraining order) or the other party’s attorney (if they have one) by Monday, January

9 4, 2021 at 4:00 PM to notify the Court Clerk and the other side of their objection to the Tentative Ruling.

10 Failure to state that there is an objection and notify the other side and the Court by this deadline will result

11 in the adoption of the tentative ruling as an order of the Court.

12 If either party notifies both the Court and the other party (unless there is a restraining order) or the

13 other party’s attorney (if they have one) of an objection to the Tentative Ruling, then the tentative ruling
14 will not be adopted as an order of the Court and the parties must appear by video, by phone, or in person

15 on Tuesday, January 5, 2021 at 9:00 AM in Dept. 404. If a party chooses to appear by video or by

16 phone, that party must abide by the Notice and Instructions for Remote Appearances in San

17 Francisco Family Court set forth above on page 2 of this document.


18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29
1 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

2 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

3 UNIFIED FAMILY COURT

5
)
6 JASON A YURASEK, ) Case Number: FDI-12-778342
)
7 Petitioner ) Hearing Date: January 5, 2021
)
8 VS. ) Hearing Time: 9:00 AM
)
9 BOHDANNA M KESALA, ) Department: 404
)
10 Respondent ) Presiding: VICTOR M. HWANG
)
11 )

12 REQUEST FOR ORDER RE: AWARD OF $81,000 IN FEES TO DEFEND PETITIONER'S APPEAL
13 OF COURT'S PRIOR FEE AWARD OF $80,000
14 TENTATIVE RULING

15 Having read and considered the pleadings, declarations, and other evidence submitted in this
16 matter, the Court makes the following findings and orders:
17 Respondent’s request for $81,000 in Family Code 2030 fees is granted. Petitioner shall pay
18 Respondent the full amount by March 1, 2021. Payment shall be considered late by March 5, 2021.

19 Respondent’s counsel shall prepare the order.


20

21

22 INSTRUCTIONS AFTER RECEIPT OF TENTATIVE RULING:

23 If either party disagrees with the Tentative Ruling set forth above and / or wishes to present
24 additional argument, that party must contact the Court Clerk in Dept. 404 as well as the other party
25 (unless there is a restraining order) or the other party’s attorney (if they have one) by Monday, January
26 4, 2021 at 4:00 PM to notify the Court Clerk and the other side of their objection to the Tentative Ruling.

27 Failure to state that there is an objection and notify the other side and the Court by this deadline will result
28 in the adoption of the tentative ruling as an order of the Court.
29
1 If either party notifies both the Court and the other party (unless there is a restraining order) or the

2 other party’s attorney (if they have one) of an objection to the Tentative Ruling, then the tentative ruling

3 will not be adopted as an order of the Court and the parties must appear by video, by phone, or in person

4 on Tuesday, January 5, 2021 at 9:00 AM in Dept. 404. If a party chooses to appear by video or by

5 phone, that party must abide by the Notice and Instructions for Remote Appearances in San

6 Francisco Family Court set forth above on page 2 of this document.

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29
1 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

2 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

3 UNIFIED FAMILY COURT

5
)
6 MONICA MARESCA, ) Case Number: FDI-15-783695
)
7 Petitioner ) Hearing Date: January 5, 2021
)
8 VS. ) Hearing Time: 9:00 AM
)
9 JEREMY AKSDAL-JANSEN, ) Department: 404
)
10 Respondent ) Presiding: VICTOR M. HWANG
)
11 )

12 REQUEST FOR ORDER FOR CHANGE OF VISITATION AND EMERGENCY ORDER OR ORDER
13 SHORTENING TIME
14 TENTATIVE RULING

15 Appearances required. The Court is considering moving to a schedule which will involve less
16 exchanges and more flexibility for the minor such as a week on/week off schedule with two dinner visits
17 for Mother on her off-weeks or a Mon-Thurs with Mother and Fri-Sun with Father. The Court is inclined
18 to formally award slightly more time to Mother to account for the time spent with Father in tennis

19 practice. The Court is also considering the following orders:


20 1) Minor is to continue with all therapy and counselling sessions.

21 2) Both parties are ordered not to contact police in the absence of a true emergency. This Court

22 does not favor well-being checks and considers them a form of harassment.

23 3) Father must abide by schedule. If he is going to be more than 15 minutes late for either a

24 pick-up or drop-off, he must communicate with Mother. Father should remain in his vehicle

25 at all times during exchanges.

26 4) Both sides should support minor in tennis.

27 5) Minor will have the right to deviate from the schedule for up to one day each week with

28 advance (24 hours) notice to both parents.

29
1 The parties must appear in-person, by video, or by phone. Video appearances are strongly

2 preferred. If a party chooses to appear by video or by phone, that party must abide by the Notice and

3 Instructions for Remote Appearances in San Francisco Family Court set forth above on page 2 of this

4 document.

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29
1 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

2 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

3 UNIFIED FAMILY COURT

5
)
6 JOSEPH C ROBERTS, ) Case Number: FDI-19-792535
)
7 Petitioner ) Hearing Date: January 5, 2021
)
8 VS. ) Hearing Time: 9:00 AM
)
9 JASMINE DANYELLE WHITE, ) Department: 404
)
10 Respondent ) Presiding: VICTOR M. HWANG
)
11 )

12 REQUEST FOR ORDER RE: ORDER TO COMPEL PETITIONER'S DISCLOSURE AND ISSUE
13 EXCLUSION (FC SEC. 2107) & SANCTIONS (FC SEC.271)
14 TENTATIVE RULING

15 Having read and considered the pleadings, declarations, and other evidence submitted in this
16 matter, the Court makes the following findings and orders:
17 Respondent’s unopposed motion is granted in its entirety. Petitioner is ordered to fully complete
18 and serve his preliminary declarations of disclosure (“PDD”) within 15 days from the date of this hearing.

19 If Petitioner fails to serve his PPD within 15 days, he shall be prevented from presenting evidence on any
20 issues that he should have disclosed in his PPD. Respondent’s request for 271 sanctions in the amount of
21 $2,500 is granted. The Court finds that Petitioner’s conduct has frustrated the policy of settlement.
22 Payment shall be made to Respondent by January 15, 2021 and will be considered late if received after

23 the 20th of January. Respondent’s counsel shall prepare the order.


24

25

26 INSTRUCTIONS AFTER RECEIPT OF TENTATIVE RULING:

27 If either party disagrees with the Tentative Ruling set forth above and / or wishes to present
28 additional argument, that party must contact the Court Clerk in Dept. 404 as well as the other party
29 (unless there is a restraining order) or the other party’s attorney (if they have one) by Monday, January
1 4, 2021 at 4:00 PM to notify the Court Clerk and the other side of their objection to the Tentative Ruling.

2 Failure to state that there is an objection and notify the other side and the Court by this deadline will result

3 in the adoption of the tentative ruling as an order of the Court.

4 If either party notifies both the Court and the other party (unless there is a restraining order) or the

5 other party’s attorney (if they have one) of an objection to the Tentative Ruling, then the tentative ruling

6 will not be adopted as an order of the Court and the parties must appear by video, by phone, or in person

7 on Tuesday, January 5, 2021 at 9:00 AM in Dept. 404. If a party chooses to appear by video or by

8 phone, that party must abide by the Notice and Instructions for Remote Appearances in San

9 Francisco Family Court set forth above on page 2 of this document.

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

Оценить