DATE: 06/25/25 TIME: 9:00 A.M. DEPT: B CASE NO: FL0000690PRESIDING: HON. JANET L. FRANKELREPORTER: CLERK: ALEX URTONPETITIONER: PATRICK MURRAYandRESPONDENT: VANESSA POWERSNATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: 1) CASE PROGRESS CONFERENCE2) REVIEW HEARING - CHILD CUSTODYRULINGThis matter comes before the court on a custody review hearing stemming fromPetitioner/Fathers Request for Order (RFO) filed March 1, 2024.On March 19, 2025, the parties were re-referred to Family Court Services (FCS) for childcustody recommending counseling and mediation. The parties reached some agreements and arethe court commends them for doing so.Based on the information before the court, it appears that the best interest of the minor child,Delilah, born November 8, 2021, will be served by the court adopting the agreements of theparties as set forth in the FCS report issued on June 12, 2025, and the court orders as follows:1. Parents shall have joint legal custody of Delilah.2. Parents shall communicate using Our Family Wizard for all coparenting communications.3. Parents shall select a coparenting counselor. If they are unable to do so by their June 25,2025 hearing date, they shall each provide one to two names of prospective coparentingcounselors to each other and to the court at the hearing date, and the court shall make theselection.4. Mother shall give Father access to Delilahs Kaiser online medical portal.FL0000690Additionally, based on the information before the court, it appears that the best interest of theminor child, Delilah, born November 8, 2021, will be served by the court adopting therecommendations of Family Court Services (FCS), as set forth in its report issued on June 12,2025, as modified by the court. The court will do so, and orders as follows:1. All prior orders not in conflict with the below shall remain in full force and effectwith the following modifications.2. Parental Timeshare:a. Commencing June 26, 2025, and for a period of two months, Delilah shall be inMothers custody on each Thursday and Sunday for an overnight. Mother shallpickup Delilah at the end of her summer camp or preschool on Thursdays, and atFathers home at 10:00 a.m. on Sundays. Mother shall dropoff Delilah at hersummer camp or preschool on Friday and Monday mornings.b. Delilah shall continue to be in Mothers custody during the day on weekdayswhen Father is working and when Delilah is not in preschool or summer camp.c. Delilah shall be in Fathers custody at all other times when not in Motherscustody.d. Commencing August 28, 2025, if there have been no problems with Mothergetting Delilah to school on time on Friday and Monday mornings according tothe above schedule as specified in paragraph 2a-c, Mother shall have parentingtime on alternate weekends from Friday after school through Monday morningdrop off at school and each Thursday for an overnight. Mothers weekend shallbegin on August 29, 2025.e. This schedule shall be in place for four months. Delilah shall be in Fatherscustody at all other times when not in Mothers custody.f. Commencing January 5, 2026, if there have been no problems with Mothergetting Delilah to school on time on the schedule specified above in paragraph 2b,Delilah shall transition to a 2/2/3 schedule. Under a 2/2/3 schedule, the followingtwo-week rotating schedule shall be in place:Page 2 of 4FL0000690a. In week 1 (commencing January 5, 2026), Delilah shall be in Motherscustody on Mondays and Tuesdays (with drop off at school on Wednesdaymorning) and in Fathers custody from Wednesday after school throughFriday morning drop off at school. Mother shall then have custody for theweekend from Friday after school through Monday morning drop off atschool.b. In week 2, (commencing January 12, 2026) Delilah shall be in Fatherscustody on Mondays and Tuesdays (with drop off at school on Wednesdaymorning) and in Mothers custody from Wednesday after school throughFriday morning drop off at school. Father shall then have custody for theweekend from Friday after school through Monday morning drop off atschool.3. Overnights for Mother are contingent on Mother maintaining sobriety.4. Exchanges shall occur at school whenever possible.5. Delilah shall be brought to school on time unless she has a medical appointment,physical or occupational therapy appointment, etc. If there is a pattern of Motherfailing to bring Delilah to school on time, this shall be grounds for a reconsiderationof the timeshare.6. Summer 2025: If a parent is available to care for Delilah during the day when shewould otherwise be in preschool/daycare, Delilah shall not be obligated to attendpreschool/daycare beyond her regular three-days per week schedule between 9:30AM through 1 PM.7. Delilah shall participate in her physical and occupational therapies as scheduled.8. Both parents shall support the recommended physical activities for Delilah to helpaddress her medical needs (e.g. swimming and other regular exercise).CASE PROGRESS CONFERENCEPage 3 of 4FL0000690The Department of Child Support Services (DCSS) opened a case and filed a SupplementalSummons and Complaint. The Case Progress Conference is continued to September 24, 2025 at9:00 a.m. and will be ordered off-calendar if a Judgment Regarding Parental Obligations is filedprior to that date.Counsel for Mother is ordered to prepare the formal order after hearing.Litigants who require the assistance of an interpreter may appear in court to access the servicesof a staff interpreter, or they may appear remotely. Persons who require interpreter services viaremote appearance shall notify the clerk of the court in advance to schedule remote interpreterservices:Parties must comply with Marin County Superior Court Local Rules, Rule 7.12(B), (C), whichprovide 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(Le., it is not necessary to speak with counsel or parties directly.) Unless the Court and all partieshave been notified of a request to present oral argument, no oral argument will be permittedexcept by order of the Court. In the event no party requests oral argument in accordance withRule 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 toappear in court. In-person appearances are also permitted.FURTHER ORDERED that the parties are responsible for ensuring that they have a goodconnection and that they are available for the hearing. If the connection is inadequate, the Courtmay proceed with the hearing in the partys absence.Any party contesting the ruling and requesting oral argument shall appear in person or remotelythrough Zoom either by video or telephone. Please follow the guidelines set forth on the courtwebsite at www.marin.courts.ca.gov.Ifa 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, avoidingdisruptions, and wearing proper attire appropriate for a court environment. Parties must act andspeak in a professional and respectful manner as though they are in an actual courtroom. If aparty or counsel is unable to follow proper Zoom etiquette, the court may halt the hearing andorder the parties to return in person.Page 4 of 4

25CV01538 In re: Hooker, Bonnie FayeEVENT: Change of name (adult)The Court is in receipt of the proof of publication and will sign the decree provided.

DATE: 06/20/25 TIME: 9:00 A.M. DEPT: D CASE NO: FL0000644PRESIDING: HON. BETH S. JORDANREPORTER: CLERK: STACY BONDPETITIONER: LISA SIRABELLAandRESPONDENT: BRYAN ETKIENATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: REQUEST FOR ORDER - ATTORNEYS FEESRULINGThis matter was originally set for hearing on 5/23/25 on Respondent/Fathers 3/28/25 Requestfor Order ("RFO") re: attorneys fees and costs in the amount of $56,886, per In re Marriage ofBorson (1974) 37 Cal. App. 3d 632 and pursuant to Family Code $$ 2030 and 271.Petitioner/Mother filed a Responsive Declaration on 5/19/25 in which she opposes any award ofattorneys fees in reliance on the Prenuptial and Postnuptial agreements where each party agreesto pay their own legal fees, and the fact that she was previously ordered to pay $60,000 forFathers fees.The matter was continued for hearing due to Petitioner/Mothers failure to provide the requiredfinancial information and documentation for the Court to be able to evaluate her ability to paythe requested fees. On 5/23/25 the Court ordered Mother to provide to the Court, by 5/30/25, anupdated Income and Expense declaration, her last two most recently filed federal and stateincome tax returns, both business and personal, and 2024 and 2025 profit and loss statements forthe rental properties she owns.The Court has reviewed Mothers Responsive Declaration filed 5/19/25, her Income & ExpenseDeclarations filed on 5/30/25 and financial documents filed 6/13/25. She has failed to complywith the Courts 3/28/25 order to produce any profit and loss statements for 2024 or 2025, andhas provided only the first page of her Form 1040 for 2023. Without profit and loss statements,the Court is unable to tell what expenses are being deducted which may be appropriate add-backs.Mother continues a pattern she has exhibited throughout this litigation of disregarding Courtorders. Moreover, Mother filed two I&Es - on both Mother states the fair market value of herreal estate assets (minus debts she owes) is $2.5 million. However, on the I&E she filed on5/30/25, she claimed real property income between $8,800 and $10,500/month, and $47,424 inmonthly expenses. In contrast, in her I&E filed on 6/10/25, Mother claims she receives between$10,000 and $12,000/month in rental income, noting $44,000 in annual depreciation, and listsFL0000644her monthly expenses as $32,234. She also claims a business home equity loan of $400,000 and$53,100 other outstanding debts. Mother also states, without supporting documentation, she hasspent $300,000 on her own attorneys fees in this case, which is difficult to understand since shehas been self-represented through most of this case. In short, Mothers submissions to the Courtare contradictory and not complete. What does remain constant is Mothers assertion that she hasreal property valued at $2.5 million.The Court notes that Mothers refusals to abide by Court orders, including numerous restrainingorder violations (after repeated warnings), has significantly and unfairly increased Respondentsattorneys fees and costs, requiring him to repeatedly file motions and appear in court. Father isrequesting $41,886 for fees and costs incurred since 7/27/24 plus $15,000 for fees and costs totake the matter through Bench Bar Settlement Conference.It remains clear that there is a significant disparity in the parties incomes, assets and access tofunds, in favor of Mother. Fathers updated I&E indicates he earns an average of $3,402/monthand receives $2,400/month in rental income. He values his real and personal property at$332,902. His monthly expenses are $7,035 and has an outstanding mortgage of $100,000.Father has had sole custody of the parties daughter, Eliza (DOB 7/4/21) for the past ninemonths, and she has been in his primary care and physical custody for close to a year.Father asks the Court to award him $41,886 in fees and costs incurred since 7/27/25, plus$15,000 for future fees for the upcoming Bench Bar Settlement Conference, or a total of$56,886. Although, as noted, Mothers financial position is significantly better than Fathers, theCourt does not find that Mother should bear all of Fathers fees. Therefore, the Court orders asfollows:1. Mother shall pay to Father, as and for attorneys fees and costs, the sum of$42,664.50, representing 75% of the requested fees. Father shall bear the remaining$14,221.50.2. Said fees shall be paid to Father by 715/25.SO ORDERED.Counsel for Father to prepare the order.Parties must comply with Marin County Superior Court Local Rules, Rule 7.12(B), (C), whichprovide 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 scheduledhearing. Notice may be by telephone or in person to all other parties that argument is beingrequested (i.e., it is not necessary to speak with counsel or parties directly.) Unless the Courtand all parties have been notified of a request to present oral argument, no oral argument willPage 2 of 3FL0000644be permitted except by order of the Court. In the event no party requests oral argument inaccordance 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 orderedto appear in court. In-person appearances are also permitted. Evidentiary hearings shall bein-person in Department D, The parties may access Department D for video conference via alink on the court website,FURTHER ORDERED that the parties are responsible for ensuring that they have a goodconnection and that they are available for the hearing. If the connection is inadequate, theCourt may proceed with the hearing in the partys absence.Any party contesting the ruling and requesting oral argument shall appear in person orremotely through Zoom either by video or telephone. Please follow the guidelines set forth onthe court website at www.marin.courts.ca.govThe Zoom appearance information is as follows:June 2025 at 09:00 AMJoin Zoom MeetingAttps://marin-courts-ca-gov.zoomgoy.com//1601114119?2pwd=p6bVIES8 WHim]1 j7izyTrwiExIVOby4.1Meeting ID: 160 111 4119Passcode: 636308If you are only able to appear by phone you may dial the phone number below, follow theprompts and enter the meeting ID and passcode.+1-669-254-5252 US (San Jose)Meeting ID: 160 111 4119Passcode: 636308If 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, avoidingdisruptions, and wearing proper attire appropriate for a court environment. Parties must actand 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 hearingand order the parties to return in person.Page 3 of 3

DATE: 06/27/25 TIME: 9:00 A.M. DEPT: D CASE NO: FL0001834PRESIDING: HON. BETH S. JORDANREPORTER: CLERK: STACY BONDPETITIONER: JOSE PIEDRASANTAandRESPONDENT: TANIA HERNANDEZNATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: REQUEST FOR ORDER - CHILD CUSTODY/VISITATIONRULINGThis matter is set for hearing on Petitioner/Fathers 4/10/25 Request for Order ("RFO") re: childcustody/visitation regarding the parties child, Sofia (DOB 5/11/15), in which he requests jointlegal and physical custody of Sofia with a weekend time-share.The Court notes that neither the RFO nor the Petition to Establish Parental Relationship filed byFather on 4/10/25 have been served on Respondent/Mother. The Court cannot proceed with thiscase until Mother is properly served and proof of service is filed with the court.This matter is continued to August 8, 2025 at 9:00 am in Department D.Father is referred to the Courts Legal Self-Help Center for assistance. They can be reached inperson at Room C-44 at the Marin County Courthouse, by email at selfhelp@marin.courts.ca.govand/or by telephone at (415) 444-7130.The court will prepare the order per Rule 5.125 CA Rules of CourtParties must comply with Marin County Superior Court Local Rules, Rule 7.12(B), (C), whichprovide 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 scheduledhearing. Notice may be by telephone or in person to all other parties that argument is beingrequested (i.e., it is not necessary to speak with counsel or parties directly.) Unless the Courtand all parties have been notified of a request to present oral argument, no oral argument willbe permitted except by order of the Court. In the event no party requests oral argument in ,accordance with Rule 7.12(O), the tentative ruling shall become the order of the court. ,FL0001834IT IS ORDERED that video appearances though Zoom are permitted unless a party is orderedto appear in court. In-person appearances are also permitted. Evidentiary hearings shall bein-person in Department D. The parties may access Department D for video conference via alink on the court website.FURTHER ORDERED that the parties are responsible for ensuring that they have a goodconnection and that they are available for the hearing. If the connection is inadequate, theCourt may proceed with the hearing in the partys absence.Any party contesting the ruling and requesting oral argument shall appear in person orremotely through Zoom either by video or telephone, Please follow the guidelines set forth onthe court website at wThe Zoom appearance information is as follows:June 2025 at 09:00 AMJoin Zoom Meetinghittps://marin-courts-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/160LLI4L192pwd=pobVIERWH im Li7izvTrwiExlVObyd. 1Meeting ID: 160 111 4119Passcode: 636308If you are only able to appear by phone you may dial the phone number below, follow theprompts and enter the meeting ID and passcode.+1-669-254-5252 US (San Jose)Meeting ID: 160 111 4119Passcode: 636308If 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, avoidingdisruptions, and wearing proper attire appropriate for a court environment. Parties must actand 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 hearingand order the parties to return in person.Page 2 of 2

DATE: 06/27/25 TIME: 9:00 A.M. DEPT: D CASE NO: FL0001834PRESIDING: HON. BETH S. JORDANREPORTER: CLERK: STACY BONDPETITIONER: JOSE PIEDRASANTAandRESPONDENT: TANIA HERNANDEZNATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: REQUEST FOR ORDER - CHILD CUSTODY/VISITATIONRULINGThis matter is set for hearing on Petitioner/Fathers 4/10/25 Request for Order ("RFO") re: childcustody/visitation regarding the parties child, Sofia (DOB 5/11/15), in which he requests jointlegal and physical custody of Sofia with a weekend time-share.The Court notes that neither the RFO nor the Petition to Establish Parental Relationship filed byFather on 4/10/25 have been served on Respondent/Mother. The Court cannot proceed with thiscase until Mother is properly served and proof of service is filed with the court.This matter is continued to August 8, 2025 at 9:00 am in Department D.Father is referred to the Courts Legal Self-Help Center for assistance. They can be reached inperson at Room C-44 at the Marin County Courthouse, by email at selfhelp@marin.courts.ca.govand/or by telephone at (415) 444-7130.The court will prepare the order per Rule 5.125 CA Rules of CourtParties must comply with Marin County Superior Court Local Rules, Rule 7.12(B), (C), whichprovide 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 scheduledhearing. Notice may be by telephone or in person to all other parties that argument is beingrequested (i.e., it is not necessary to speak with counsel or parties directly.) Unless the Courtand all parties have been notified of a request to present oral argument, no oral argument willbe permitted except by order of the Court. In the event no party requests oral argument in ,accordance with Rule 7.12(O), the tentative ruling shall become the order of the court. ,FL0001834IT IS ORDERED that video appearances though Zoom are permitted unless a party is orderedto appear in court. In-person appearances are also permitted. Evidentiary hearings shall bein-person in Department D. The parties may access Department D for video conference via alink on the court website.FURTHER ORDERED that the parties are responsible for ensuring that they have a goodconnection and that they are available for the hearing. If the connection is inadequate, theCourt may proceed with the hearing in the partys absence.Any party contesting the ruling and requesting oral argument shall appear in person orremotely through Zoom either by video or telephone, Please follow the guidelines set forth onthe court website at wThe Zoom appearance information is as follows:June 2025 at 09:00 AMJoin Zoom Meetinghittps://marin-courts-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/160LLI4L192pwd=pobVIERWH im Li7izvTrwiExlVObyd. 1Meeting ID: 160 111 4119Passcode: 636308If you are only able to appear by phone you may dial the phone number below, follow theprompts and enter the meeting ID and passcode.+1-669-254-5252 US (San Jose)Meeting ID: 160 111 4119Passcode: 636308If 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, avoidingdisruptions, and wearing proper attire appropriate for a court environment. Parties must actand 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 hearingand order the parties to return in person.Page 2 of 2

FL-24-000737 – MAYORQUIN VS MAYORQUINAttorney for Respondent’s Motion to be Relieved —HEARING REQUIRED.The following are the tentative ruling cases calendared before Judge David I. Hood in Department #25:THERE ARE NO TENTATIVES.

No appearances necessary. The Petition for Nullity of Marriage was filed on December 3, 2024. Petitioner has not filed a Proof of Service (FL-115) with the court. The court cannot proceed with any orders until a valid Proof of Service is filed. Petitioner is ordered to file a valid proof of service (form FL-115) prior to the next court appearance. Petitioner is referred to the court’s Family Law Facilitator, available via email at selfhelp@amadorcourt.org, for assistance. The matter is continued for further Case Management Conference (CMC) to January 6, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. in Dept. 3.

DATE: 06/27/25 TIME: 9:00 A.M. DEPT: D CASE NO: FL0001654PRESIDING: HON. BETH S. JORDANREPORTER: CLERK: STACY BONDPETITIONER: JACK GOLDSTEINandRESPONDENT: MARK GOLDSTEINNATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: REQUEST FOR ORDER - ATTORNEYS FEESI!RULINGThis matter is scheduled for hearing on Jack Goldsteins 5/7/25 Request for Order (RFO") forMark Goldstein to pay his attorneys fees and costs of $64,633, per Family Code $ 6344, sincethese fees and costs were incurred in connection with the Domestic Violence Restraining Order(DVRO") issued by the Court on 4/8/25 in which Jack Goldstein is the protected party andMark Goldstein, Jacks father, is the restrained party. Together with the RFO, a Memorandum ofPoints and Authorities, Jacks Declaration and the Declaration of Jacks counsel, James Hann,Esq., were filed. A Responsive Declaration was filed on behalf of Mark on 6/13/25 opposing therequested fee award. On 6/17/25 a Reply & Closing Brief on Attorneys Fees was filed on behalfof Jack.Jack argues that he is the prevailing party, which entitles him to attorneys fees and costs -$46,428 incurred through conclusion of the evidentiary hearing, and an estimated $23,235 forpost-trial work - and that Mark has the ability to pay those fees, which he deems reasonable.Mark argues that Jack was not a prevailing party because he was denied a good portion of therelief he requested, and that the amount of fees requested is unreasonable given thecircumstances of the case.After considering the arguments of counsel, the Court does find Jack was the prevailing party onthe DVRO. Despite the fact that the Court did not grant him all requested relief, he did convincethe Court, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he had been subjected to abuse by Mark, andthat the protection of a restraining order was warranted. The Court also finds Mark has theability to pay the fees.Nonetheless, the Court does not believe the analysis stops there. While Family Code $ 6344 doesnot expressly state that the Court must consider whether an attorney fee request is reasonable,such a requirement must be assumed in every case involving attorney fee awards to ensure bothjustice and fairness. Given the circumstances of this case, the Court finds that $64,633 is notFL0001654reasonable. This was not a complex case. In fact, although the original Request for a TemporaryRestraining Order included Jacks brother and sister, it was simplified when they were bothremoved from the TRO - the first removed when the TRO was issued, and the second shortlythereafter - both well before the hearing. At the evidentiary hearing only two witnesses werecalled to testify: Jack and Mark. One exhibit was entered into evidence. The evidentiary hearingbegan at 9:05 am and concluded at 11:25 am - a total of 2 hours and 20 minutes.Considering all of the above, the Court orders as follows:1. As and for reasonable prevailing party attorneys fees and costs per Family Code$6344, Mark shall pay the sum of $27,500 to Jacks attorney, James Hann, Esq.2. Said sum shall be paid by 7/15/25.SO ORDERED.The Court will prepare the orderParties must comply with Marin County Superior Court Local Rules, Rule 7.12(B), (C), whichprovide 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 scheduledhearing. Notice may be by telephone or in person to all other parties that argument is beingrequested (i.e., it is not necessary to speak with counsel or parties directly.) Unless the Courtand all parties have been notified of a request to present oral argument, no oral argument willbe permitted except by order of the Court. In the event no party requests oral argument inaccordance 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 orderedto appear in court. In-person appearances are also permitted. Evidentiary hearings shall bein-person in Department D, The parties may access Department D for video conference via alink on the court website.FURTHER ORDERED that the parties are responsible for ensuring that they have a goodconnection and that they are available for the hearing. If the connection is inadequate, theCourt may proceed with the hearing in the partys absence.Any party contesting the ruling and requesting oral argument shall appear in person orremotely through Zoom either by video or telephone. Please follow the guidelines set forth onThe Zoom appearance information is as follows:June 2025 at 09:00 AMJoin Zoom MeetingPage 2 of 3FL0001654https://marin-courts-ca-gov.zoomgoy.com/j/1601114119?pwd=pobVMeeting ID: 160 111 4119Passcode: 636308If you are only able to appear by phone you may dial the phone number below, follow theprompts and enter the meeting ID and passcode.+1-669-254-5252 US (San Jose)Meeting ID: 160 111 4119Passcode: 636308If 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, avoidingdisruptions, and wearing proper attire appropriate for a court environment. Parties must actand 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 hearingand order the parties to return in person.Page 3 of 3