Any litigant can request a statement of decision at a trial. The purpose is to define the judicial officer’s decision in wrting and allow litigants the opportunity to identify ambiguities and fallacies in the ruling through objections. If those objections are not raised the issues cannot be raised in the corresponding appeal.
However, the court fails to adhere to California rules of court. As an example the court issued a tentative statement of decision on 9/10/2013. The appropriate objections were filed in a timely manner. The court amended its tentative statement of decision on 10/2/2013 and incorporated the amendment by reference in the minute order. Again the appropriate objections were filed to the modified tentative statement of decision.
To date the court has not addressed a single decision and leaves a tentative decision that is not binding languishing in the case, prohibiting that a party file an appeal.
Now one would assume that judges are simply not famiilar with rules of court or the procedures that govern a request for statement of decision BUT a similar issue was already addressed by the appeal court in a peremptory writ in 2011 by the Court of Appeal, which DIRECTED the court to adhere to procedure.
It is apparent that the Riverside Superior Court prefers to ignore the directions of its supervisory Court of Appeal.