Navigating the complexities of family law can be challenging, especially when dealing with cases involving out-of-state respondents. One particular aspect that requires careful attention in the process of obtaining a Default Stipulated Judgment (Default with Agreement) in Alameda Superior Court is establishing "personal jurisdiction". In the case of Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court, the Supreme Court set forth specific requirements for establishing personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state respondent. Failure to establish personal jurisdiction may hinder the court's ability to grant a judgment that includes spousal support or property division orders.

This blog post aims to shed light on the procedural review of default and uncontested judgments submitted under the Family Code section 2336 in Alameda County Superior Court, as well as provide recommendations for navigating such cases. It is important to consult with an attorney to ensure your rights are protected throughout the legal proceedings.

The Court's Procedural Review: When a default or uncontested judgment is submitted based on a declaration under Family Code section 2336, the court in Alamanda County is obligated to conduct a procedural review of all the documents submitted. This review aims to identify any defects in the documents and must include notifying the attorneys or self-represented litigants of the identified issues. According to the California Rules of Court 5.407, any notification of defects must also provide basic information for correcting those defects. This ensures that all parties are aware of any deficiencies in their submissions and provides an opportunity for necessary amendments.

Amending the Proposed Judgment
The court may identify various defects in a proposed judgment submitted in a default with agreement case involving an out-of-state respondent. Some of the common errors and instructions provided by the court for amending the proposed judgment are as follows:

1. Minimum Contacts Declaration: If you wish to establish the court's jurisdiction, you can file a "minimum contacts" declaration. This declaration should provide factual evidence that demonstrates the respondent's sufficient minimum contacts with California to warrant the court's authority in making orders regarding spousal support and property issues.
2. Express Consent: Another way to establish jurisdiction is by amending the proposed judgment to include the respondent's express consent to the court's jurisdiction. You can add this provision to the parties' Marriage Settlement Agreement or include it in item 4.o on the FL-180 form.
3. Service in California: If you serve the respondent while they are in California, it is crucial to file a proof of service describing the details of the service. You can use the optional Proof of Service of Summons (form FL-115) for this purpose.
4. Formal Appearance: If the respondent wishes to formally appear in the case, you must first submit a stipulation to set aside the default that has been taken against them. The respondent can formally appear by filing a Response (form FL-120) or by signing an Appearance, Stipulations, and Waivers (form FL-130) that has already been filed. The respondent will be required to pay the first appearance fee of $435, unless a fee waiver is obtained. Additionally, the respondent must complete form FL-141, which details the service of their preliminary declarations of disclosure. Lastly, you must amend item 4 on the FL-170 form so that item 4.c is checked.
5. ​Status-Only Judgment: If you cannot establish the court's jurisdiction over the respondent through any of the aforementioned methods, you have the option to submit a proposed status-only judgment. In this case, you should enter the following at item 4.o on the FL-180: "The Respondent does not have the requisite contacts with CA, and for that reason, I am submitting a proposed status-only judgment." However, it is essential to remove any orders regarding spousal support or property division from the FL-180, check the box for "status only" in the header of the FL-180, and refrain from checking the box at item 4.g on the FL-180 or item 17 on the Declaration for Default or Uncontested Dissolution or Legal Separation (form FL-170).

​Consult with an Attorney
Always consult with a qualified family law attorney for personalized guidance and advice in your specific situation. Remember, each situation is unique, and professional legal advice from an attorney is essential for protecting your rights and ensuring a fair outcome. Navigating family law cases involving out-of-state respondents and complex jurisdiction issues can be overwhelming. It is strongly recommended to consult with an experienced family law attorney who can provide guidance tailored to your specific circumstances. An attorney will help you understand the legal requirements, assist in preparing the necessary documents, and ensure that your rights are protected throughout the process. 

Conclusion
When seeking a Default Stipulated Judgment (Default with Agreement) in Alameda Superior Court, it is vital to carefully consider the court's instructions and requirements. Particularly for cases involving out-of-state respondents, establishing jurisdiction and adhering to the court's guidelines become critical for a successful resolution. By following the steps outlined by the court, individuals can navigate the process more effectively and ensure that their proposed judgments align with the necessary legal requirements. 

As a Legal Document Assistant (LDA), I encounter a wide array of individuals seeking my assistance with their legal matters. It is both rewarding and challenging to guide them through the intricacies of the legal system. However, there is a crucial aspect that I must clarify—I am unable to provide legal advice, despite the persistent inquiries from my customers. While their curiosity is understandable, it is vital to recognize the limitations placed upon me as an LDA.

To shed light on the importance of this distinction, let's delve into the findings of the California Justice Gap study. This comprehensive analysis revealed a distressing reality: a significant knowledge gap exists among the general public when it comes to understanding their legal issues. This lack of awareness is precisely why individuals often unwittingly seek legal advice when all they require is a legal analysis.