Maria Esquivel and Bernardo Cruz Salinas
Case No: 18FL02789
Hearing Date: Tue Aug 20, 2019 10:30

Nature of Proceedings: Default Prove-Up

Default Prove-Up

Attorneys: Tracey Rangel Cruz for Petitioner

Ruling: Continued to September 24, 2019, for the reasons below.

Analysis:

The case has an extensive background. When the case was on calendar on 4/3/19 this Court noted that the case was filed in 11/2018; Dissolution of Marriage; 22-years-6 months; one minor child born 7/2007; no response ever filed; father was self-represented.

On 3/29 Geoff Connor Newlan substituted in as attorney for Respondent/father. Tracey Rangel Cruz filed a FLIS on 4/26; reported that Geoff Newlan recently substituted into this case; Counsel had met and conferred and father claims that the parties were divorced in Mexico, which mother disputes; father was obtaining additional documents from Mexico which will take some time for the parties to obtain, translate, and review; mother requested that the Case Management Conference be continued 90 days to allow time for the parties to review the alleged Mexican divorce documents; noted that father will undoubtedly elect to file a Motion to Quash or respond; father’s Response was ordered to be filed by May 7 and the matter was continued to July 23, 2019, to the CMC Calendar.

The case was last on calendar on 7/23/19 and the Court ruled as follows: “For the reasons set out below the matter is continued to August 20, 2019, at 10:30 a.m. to the Family Law CMC Calendar. All temporary DVROs will remain in effect until further order of Court. At the last CMC, on April 30, 2019, the Court ordered Respondent to file his Response to the divorce petition by May 7, 2019. Respondent has still not filed his Response. Petitioner is unable to complete her financial disclosures. The Respondent is now Ordered to file his Response by August 6, 2019; if he does not file his Response timely, Petitioner will file and serve an OSC re Contempt. Petitioner’s lawyer to give notice.”

A Response to the Petition was filed on 8/5/19 by Attorney Newlan for Respondent; he reports that the Court should: “Dismiss this action as the parties are not married. The parties were married in 1994: but that marriage was annulled and divorce entered in Mexico In 2001. A certified copy of the decree ending the marriage will be presented to the court at the hearing of this case.”

Court’s Conclusions

The Court assumes Petitioner has NOT had sufficient time to formulate a decision on how to proceed; perhaps Petitioner’s counsel has not even seen the documents Respondent’s counsel refers to. This is a defining moment in this case. The case should be continued 30 days to be certain whether the case should be set for trial, whether Respondent should file a motion to quash, or whether Petitioner is convinced and elects to dismiss. There are probably other options.