Chalandar, Aisan Eslami Vs. Estrada, Tauvanne

Case Last Refreshed: 7 months ago

Chalandar, Aisan Eslami, filed a(n) Divorce,Separation - Family case represented by Sadeghi, Aram, against Estrada, Tauvanne, in the jurisdiction of Harris County, TX, . Harris County, TX Superior Courts District with JANICE BERG presiding.

Case Details for Chalandar, Aisan Eslami v. Estrada, Tauvanne

Case Number (Subscribe to View)	Judge JANICE BERG Get Judge Analytics Report
Filing Date January 27, 2022	Category Divorce
Last Refreshed September 03, 2024	Practice Area Family
Filing Location Harris County, TX	Matter Type Divorce,Separation
Filing Court House District	Case Outcome Type Uncontested Waiver Divorce

Want more data on this judge?

We've compiled an analytics report about Hon. JANICE BERG so you can be better informed. See their history, motion grant rates, case outcomes and more.

Parties for Chalandar, Aisan Eslami v. Estrada, Tauvanne

Plaintiffs

Chalandar, Aisan Eslami

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Sadeghi, Aram

Defendants

Estrada, Tauvanne

Case Events for Chalandar, Aisan Eslami v. Estrada, Tauvanne

Date	Type	Description
Date: April 11, 2022	Type: Docket Event	Description: EACH PAY OWN	:
Date: April 06, 2022	Type: Docket Event	Description: Final Decree of Divorce	:
Date: April 06, 2022	Type: Docket Event	Description: Waiver	:
Date: April 04, 2022	Type: Docket Event	Description: Affidavit For Prove-Up Of Divorce	:
Date: January 27, 2022	Type: Docket Event	Description: Petitioner's Original Petition for Divorce	:

See all events

Related Content in Harris County

Case

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL vs. JONES, MICHELLE ANTOINETTE et al

Mar 31, 2025 | ESTABLISHMENT | 202521667

Case

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL vs. AMARO, DERYN STEVEN BELLINI et al

Apr 03, 2025 | ESTABLISHMENT | 202522936

Case

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL vs. GARCIA, ERIK

Mar 31, 2025 | ESTABLISHMENT | 202521772

Case

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL vs. JONES, XAVIER LABRANDON SCOTT et al

Apr 04, 2025 | ESTABLISHMENT | 202523276

Case

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL vs. CARDENAS, CHRISTIAN ROBER et al

Mar 31, 2025 | ESTABLISHMENT | 202521636

Case

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL vs. RODRIGUEZ, ROXANA et al

Mar 31, 2025 | ESTABLISHMENT | 202521646

Case

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL vs. HARGROVE, DERRICK DEWAYNE et al

Apr 03, 2025 | ESTABLISHMENT | 202522900

Case

CALDERON, KIMBERLY MICHELLE et al vs. Unknown defendant

Apr 04, 2025 | Adult Adoption | 202523290

Case

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL vs. CALZADA, ADRIAN DEJESUS et al

Apr 01, 2025 | ESTABLISHMENT | 202521818

Ruling

In Re: Jackson

Apr 05, 2025 | 24CV-0206690

IN RE: JACKSON Case Number: 24CV-0206690 Tentative Ruling on Petition for Change of Name: Petitioner Damariae Jemele Jackson seeks to change her name to Damariae Jemele Jackson-St. Amant. All procedural requirements of CCP §§ 1275 et. seq. have been satisfied. The Petition is GRANTED. All future dates will be vacated and the file closed upon the processing of the Decree Changing Name.

Ruling

Liberty Mutual Insurance vs Evan Bowler Wilson et al

Apr 04, 2025 | 24CV453761

24CV453761 Liberty Mutual Insurance vs Motion: Order Evan Bowler Wilson et al To Obtain Phone Records from Mint Mobile/T-Mobile, or alternatively, to Enforce Deposition Subpoena Issued to Mint Mobile/T-Mobile for Production of Business Records by Petitioner Liberty Mutual Insurance No opposition, GRANTED. Moving party to prepare order for signature by court.

Ruling

William Brooks et al vs Cheryl Boomgaarden

Apr 06, 2025 | 23CV416550

23CV416550 William Brooks et Plaintiffs’ petition to compel arbitration is DENIED. See line 17 for complete 28 al vs Cheryl ruling. Court will prepare formal order. Boomgaarden 2 1 19 16CV295927 Thomas Plaintiff’s motion to enforce settlement agreement is GRANTED. See line 19 for Schweikert vs complete ruling. Court will prepare formal order. 2 Anthony Lee, et al 3

Ruling

2025CUPT038471 IN THE MATTER OF: KATHRYN ANNA NENNEKER

Apr 03, 2025 | Jeffrey G. Bennett | OSC - Name Change IN THE MATTER OF: KATHRYN ANNA NENNEKER | 2025CUPT038471

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF VENTURA Tentative Ruling 2025CUPT038471: IN THE MATTER OF: KATHRYN ANNA NENNEKER 04/03/2025 in Department 21 OSC - Name Change IN THE MATTER OF: KATHRYN ANNA NENNEKER Parties and counsel are admonished to follow Department 21’s Rules and Procedures and Zoom Instructions, both of which are available at https://www.ventura.courts.ca.gov/C21.html. Parties and counsel choosing to appear via Zoom must provide notice of your intent to appear remotely by email to courtroom21@ventura.courts.ca.gov, with a subject line that includes “NOTICE TO APPEAR VIA ZOOM.” If you fail to e-mail the court that you intend to appear remotely, your remote appearance may be delayed or denied. Parties and counsel appearing for oral argument should address the tentative decision. Parties may submit on the tentative decision by email, with a copy to all other parties in the matter, to courtroom21@ventura.courts.ca.gov before 8:00 a.m. on the day set for the hearing, with a subject line that includes “SUBMISSION ON TENTATIVE”, Case Number, Title and Party. If fewer than all parties submit on the tentative, the hearing will proceed, and the tentative ruling is subject to change. The clerk cannot advise if you should still appear or not. The decision of whether to appear for a hearing is to be made by the parties and their counsel. (Dept. 21 Rules & Procedures, p. 4, § II.I.) The following is a statement of the Court’s tentative ruling. The Court may adopt, modify or reject the tentative ruling after hearing. The tentative ruling has no legal effect unless and until adopted by the Court. Motion: Petitioner for Change of Name Tentative Ruling: Upon Petitioner’s proof of publication of the Petition and Order to Show Cause, the Court will GRANT the Petition for change of name from Kathryn Anna Nenneker to Kathryn Anna Marx. The Court finds all statutory requirements have been met. Once granted, the decree changing name will be signed and electronically transmitted for filing. Once the Court grants the Petition and signs the Decree Changing Name, a certified copy will need to be obtained from the Records Department, Room 218. A certified copy of the Decree will be needed to change the name on legal documents, including birth certificates, social security cards, and other government-issued identification such as passports or driver’s licenses.

Ruling

Liberty Mutual Insurance vs Evan Bowler Wilson et al

Apr 05, 2025 | 24CV453761

Ruling

Katherine Bruhn vs. Nicolas Duffort

Apr 05, 2025 | FL0000103

DATE: 04/03/25 TIME: 9:00 A.M. DEPT: L CASE NO: FL0000103 PRESIDING: HON. MARK A. TALAMANTES REPORTER: CLERK: JENN CHARIFA PETITIONER: KATHERINE BRUHN and RESPONDENT: NICOLAS DUFFORT NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: REQUEST FOR ORDER - CHILD CUSTODY/VISITATION RULING Petitioner Katherine Bruhn (Mother) filed for temporary emergency orders on February 7, 2025, seeking custody and visitation orders. The court entered orders on March 5, 2025, setting a hearing for the following week. The matter was continued to April 3 by request of the parties. Respondent Nicolas Bruhn (Father) filed a responsive declaration on February 27. Mother filed a reply declaration on March 3. Together, these parents have one child. Lilou is 3 years old. She was born on April 3, 2022. Happy Birthday Lilou! Both parents were referred to Marin Family Court Services (FCS) for mediation and counseling on the issues raised by Mother. [Marin is a recommending county. (Family Code $3183; Marin County Rules, Family 7.17.A.)]. Both parents were interviewed on March 5, 2025. Mother filed a statement of disagreement to the FCS report on March 26. Father filed a statement of disagreement on March 27. Mother lives in Bloomington, Illinois and Father lives in Sausalito. Mother is an assistant professor at Illinois State University and Father is a project manager for an environmental consulting company. The current schedule provides that Lilou is with both parents on an alternating 3-week schedule beginning 2-15-25 as well as one-hour Facetime each day with the non-custodial parent. Mother does not agree with Fathers hope to enroll the child in Lycess Francais private French school at a cost of $35,000.00 per year. She also raises concerns about flights for the child, shuttling back and forth from Illinois. Father hopes to continue with the current 3 week on off schedule until the school term begins. FL0000103 CUSTODY AND VISITATION The parents were able to reach agreements with the assistance of FCS on the following issues, which the court finds good cause to approve: 1. Facetime: When Lilou is in Nicks care in California, Katherine shall have Facetime calls with Lilou daily between 7:00 a.m. and 7:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. { (California time). When Lilou is in Katherines care in Illinois, Nick shall have Facetime calls with Lilou between 4:30 p.m. and 5:30 p.m. (California time). 2. The parent shall use Our Family Wizard (or another agreed upon parenting app) to communicate. The court has reviewed the statements submitted by the parents. The court has also reviewed the moving and responsive papers associated with the Request For Order. This is a complicated case that involves parents who should work better together in the best interest of the child. The parents are welcome to meet during the hearing to finalize the timeshare schedule with the assistance of either the court or the Family Law Facilitator. For now, the court finds it is in the best interest of the child to adopt the FCS recommendations as follows: Parental Responsibilities 1. The parents shall share joint legal custody of Lilou. The parents shall share in the responsibility and confer in good faith on matters concerning the childs health, education and welfare. Both parents shall have access to the childs school, medical, mental health, and dental records and the right to consult with professionals who are providing services to the child. 2. The parents shall share joint physical custody of Lilou. Timeshare Schedule 3. Ifboth parents live within 50 miles of one another, then Lilou shall live with both parents on an agreed upon 50/50 schedule. 4. If Mother continues to live in Illinois and Father continues to live in California, then: e Until 5-12-25: the currently ordered 3-week rotating schedule shall remain in place. e Summer of 2025: Lilou shall be with both parents (in both California and Illinois) on an agreed upon 50/50 schedule in increments of no less than 2 weeks but no more than 3 weeks. e 2025-2026 school year: Lilou shall be primarily in Illinois with Mother and shall be with Father for one week every month in California and one week every month in Illinois, on an agreed upon schedule. Page 2 of4 FL0000103 5. Any additional time for Lilou to be with either parent, or any changes to the schedule, shall occur as mutually agreed upon by the parents. Holidays/Vacations 6. The Holidays and vacations shall be shared equally by the parents on an agreed upon ! schedule. Collateral Issues 7. The parents shall work with an agreed upon co-parent counselor to help them peacefully and constructively communicate regarding Lilou. 8. Lilou shall be exposed to peaceful contact only between her parents. 9. Neither parent shall make any disparaging comments about the other parent in the presence of Lilou or allow others to do so. 10. Neither parent shall discuss court matters or any other adult issues in the presence of Lilou. 11. The parents shall return to Family Court Services in March of 2026 if they continue to disagree about where Lilou shall attend kindergarten in Fall of 2026. Litigants who require the assistance of an interpreter may appear in court to access the services of a staff interpreter, or they may appear remote. Persons who require interpreter services via remote appearance shall notify the clerk of the court in advance to schedule remote interpretation services. Counsel for Mother to prepare the order. Parties must comply with Marin County Superior Court Local Rules, Rule 7.12(B), (C), which ! provide 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 (i.e., it is not necessary to speak with counsel or parties directly.) Unless the Court and all parties have been notified of a request to present oral argument, no oral argument will be permitted except by order of the Court. In the event no party requests oral argument in accordance 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 ordered to appear in court. In-person appearances are also permitted. Evidentiary hearings shall be in-person in Department L. The parties may access Department L for video conference via a link on the court website. Page 3 of 4 FL0000103 FURTHER ORDERED that the parties are responsible for ensuring that they have a good connection and that they are available for the hearing. If the connection is inadequate, the Court may proceed with the hearing in the partys absence. 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: April 2025, 09:00 AM Join Zoom Meeting https://marin-courts-ca- goy.zoomgov.com/j/1 606182824 ?pwd=l6jwO1P3LyZYAJ8MzZYeRoeWy07bxE.1 Meeting ID: 160 618 2824 Passcode: 433542 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 Meeting ID: 160 618 2824 Passcode: 433542 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 4 of 4

Ruling

Kimma Barry vs. Keith Barry

Apr 04, 2025 | FL0001073

DATE: 04/03/25 TIME: 9:00 A.M. DEPT: L CASE NO: FL0001073 PRESIDING: HON. MARK A. TALAMANTES REPORTER: CLERK: JENN CHARIFA PETITIONER: KIMMA BARRY and RESPONDENT: KEITH BARRY NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: REQUEST FOR ORDER - CHILD SUPPORT; OTHER: TEMPORARY SPOUSAL SUPPORT RULING Appearances are required. The court is inclined to adopt the recommendations of Petitioner Kimberly Barry as submitted in her filing on March 7, 2025. The court will make the Family Law Facilitator available to assist the parent with support calculations. Litigants who require the assistance of an interpreter may appear in court to access the services of a staff interpreter, or they may appear remote. Persons who require interpreter services via remote appearance shall notify the clerk of the court in advance to schedule remote interpretation services. As authorized by CRC 5.125, the court will prepare the Findings and Order After Hearing. Parties must comply with Marin County Superior Court Local Rules, Rule 7.12(B), (C), which provide 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 (i.e., it is not necessary to speak with counsel or parties directly.) Unless the Court and all parties have been notified of a request to present oral argument, no oral argument will be permitted except by order of the Court. In the event no party requests oral argument in accordance 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 ordered to appear in court. In-person appearances are also permitted. Evidentiary hearings shall be in-person in Department L. The parties may access Department L for video conference via a link on the court website. FL0001073 FURTHER ORDERED that the parties are responsible for ensuring that they have a good connection and that they are available for the hearing. If the connection is inadequate, the Court may proceed with the hearing in the partys absence. 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: April 2025, 09:00 AM Join Zoom Meeting https://marin-courts-ca- gov.zoomgoy.com/i/1606182824 ?pwd=I6jwO1P3LyZVAJ8MzZYeRoeWy07bxE.1 Meeting ID: 160 618 2824 Passcode: 433542 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 Meeting ID: 160 618 2824 Passcode: 433542 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

Ruling

SIERRA PACIFIC WAGE AND HOUR CASES

Apr 01, 2025 | 5235

SIERRA PACIFIC WAGE AND HOUR CASES Case Number: 5235 Tentative Ruling on Case Management Conference: This coordinated proceeding is on calendar for a Case Management Conference. The Court has reviewed the Case Management Conference Statement filed by Plaintiff John Smith. Plaintiff McDonald and Defendant Sierra Pacific Industries did not file Case Management Statements. STAY. The McDonald matter remains stayed pending appeal. Briefing in the appeal has not been completed and Appellant’s reply brief is due March 14, 2025. The Smith matter is stayed by stipulation of the parties. MOTIONS. Pending in McDonald are SPI’s Motion for Extension of Time to Comply with Court Order Due to Impossibility that was filed on August 31, 2023 and SPI’s Motion for Protective Order Regarding Preservation and Production of Video Camera Footage that was filed on September 1, 2023. Both motions are stayed. There are currently no motions pending in the Smith matter. TRIAL DATES. Both matters remain stayed. When the stay is lifted, the Court intends to set the McDonald matter for trial and the Smith matter for hearing on the Motion for Class Certification. FURTHER CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE DATE. The Court intends to set a further Case Management Conference and will discuss available dates with counsel.

Document

In the Matter of the Marriage of Ana Daisy Lopez and Enoch V. Rodas

Aug 02, 2024 | Divorce - No Children | 24-DCV-318935

Document

Tintu Mariam VS Punnoose James

Sep 03, 2024 | LaTosha McGill Clayton | Protective Orders - No Divorce | 24-DCV-320445

Document

In the Interest of Haze'Lynn Lively Jones,Emrie Faye Jones, child(ren)

Mar 31, 2025 | Leal-Hudson, Rachel | (Title IV-D OAG Use Only) Establishment | 25-04-04983

Document

In the Matter of the Marriage of Sharlene Lee Turner and Jason Eric Webber

Sep 09, 2024 | Janet B. Heppard | Divorce - No Children | 24-DCV-320657

Document

In the Interest of Minor Child(ren)

Jul 31, 2024 | Title IV-D UIFSA | 24-DCV-318810

Document

In the Interest of Minor Child(ren)

Aug 26, 2024 | Title IV-D Support Order | 24-DCV-320086

Document

IN THE INTEREST OF LEYLA XIOMARA RODRIGUEZ AND YAHIR RODRIGUEZ, CHILDREN

Oct 10, 2019 | Flores, Ismael Kino, Jr.) Comment (CSRO (SUIT AFFECTING THE PARENT-CHILD RELATIONSHIP-AOP) | All Other Family Law Cases (OCA) | F-5284-19-2

Document

In the Interest of Minor Child(ren)

Aug 05, 2024 | Title IV-D Support Order | 24-DCV-318961

Request redaction

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Law Firms

Contents

Chalandar, Aisan Eslami Vs. Estrada, Tauvanne

Case Details for Chalandar, Aisan Eslami v. Estrada, Tauvanne

Case Number

Judge

Filing Date

Category

Last Refreshed

Practice Area

Filing Location

Matter Type

Filing Court House

Case Outcome Type

Want more data on this judge?

Parties for Chalandar, Aisan Eslami v. Estrada, Tauvanne

Plaintiffs

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Defendants

Case Events for Chalandar, Aisan Eslami v. Estrada, Tauvanne

Related Content in Harris County

Case

Case

Case

Case

Case

Case

Case

Case

Case

Ruling

Ruling

Ruling

Ruling

Ruling

Ruling

Ruling

Ruling

Document

Document

Document

Document

Document

Document

Document

Document