Party Statement: City of St. Cloud vs Racheal Martin

CREDITORS ADJUSTMENT BUREAU, INC., VS. CASTRO Case Number: 23CVG-00362 Tentative Ruling on Motion for Terminating Sanctions: Plaintiff Creditors Adjustment Bureau, Inc. moves for terminating sanctions by striking Defendant Vincent Castro’s answer. Plaintiff also requests sanctions in the amount of $1,572.75 for each motion. Procedural Defect: As a procedural matter, this motion was served both via mail and email on May 9, 2024, and set for a hearing date of June 7, 2024. CCP § 1005(b) requires all moving papers be served 16 court days before the hearing. This notice period is extended by five calendar days if the motion is served by mail. Id. For service by email, the notice period is extended by two court days. CCP § 1010.6(a)(3). This timeframe is calculated by counting backwards from the hearing date but excluding the hearing date. CCP § 12c. Starting with the June 7, 2024, hearing date and counting backwards 16 court days (excluding the Court holiday of May 27, 2024) then five calendar days for out of state mailing this matter should have been served by mail no later than, May 4, 2024. For email the last day to serve the motion was April 24, 2024. The motion was served on May 7, 2024, and was untimely under either calculation. Based on insufficient statutory notice, the motion is denied. Merits of Motion: Even if the motion had been timely noticed, terminating sanctions are not warranted. Terminating sanctions are a “drastic penalty and should be used sparingly.” Lopez v. Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York, Inc. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 566, 604. A terminating sanction should not generally be imposed by the court until less severe sanctions have been attempted and were unsuccessful. Id. No justification has been provided as to why terminating sanctions are appropriate in this context instead of lesser evidentiary or issue sanctions. Without additional evidence, terminating sanctions would be premature. The motion is DENIED. A proposed order was lodged with the Court which will be modified to reflect the denial. Review Hearing: This matter is also on calendar for review regarding trial re-setting. The Court designates this matter as a Plan II case and intends on setting it for trial no later than October 15, 2024. An appearance is necessary on today’s calendar to discuss available trial dates.

MOTION FOR ORDER TO DEEM SYNCHRONY BANK VS CVSW2400741 MATTERS ADMITTED BY SYNCHRONY FUENTES BANK Tentative Ruling: Motion is unopposed. Motion is GRANTED. Requests for Admission propounded on March 21, 2024 are deemed admitted. Court to sign proposed order.

CAPITAL ONE, N.A. VS. WARD Case Number: 23CVG-01215 Tentative Ruling on Motion for Order that Matters in Request for Admission of Truth of Facts be Admitted: Plaintiff Capital One, N.A. seeks an order deeming the truth of matters specified in Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions, Set One. Despite being timely served, Defendant Leah Ward did not file an Opposition. When a party fails to respond to a request for admission, the requesting party may move for an order deeming the genuineness of documents and the truth of matters specified in the requests admitted. CCP § 2033.280(b). Failure to respond also waives any objections to the discovery propounded. CCP § 2033.280(a). Plaintiff’s moving papers sufficiently demonstrate that Defendant has failed to respond to the Request for Admissions within the required time frame. Unlike a motion to compel further responses, a motion to compel responses when no responses have been provided does not require the propounding party to demonstrate good cause or that it satisfied a meet-and-confer requirement. Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal. App. 4th 390. Despite there being no requirement to meet and confer, Plaintiff sent a meet and confer letter to Defendant, through her former counsel, prior to filing the motion. Monetary sanctions are mandatory per CCP 2033.280(c), however, Plaintiff did not seek monetary sanctions and provided no evidence regarding attorney’s fees or other costs associated with bringing the motion. Sanctions should only be imposed for “reasonable” expenses. CCP § 2023.030. The Court does not have information upon which to make a finding that any amount of sanctions were for reasonable expenses and should not impose sanctions. The motion is GRANTED. Defendant is deemed to have admitted as true each of the items contained in Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions, Set One. Objections are waived. Plaintiff provided a proposed Order that will be executed by the Court. The Court confirms the trial date of January 21, 2025.

23CV-03604 Synchrony Bank v. Dianna Rodriguez Motion for Order that Requests for Admission be deemed admitted Appearance required. Parties who wish to appear remotely must contact the clerk of the court at (209) 725-4111 to seek permission and arrange for a remote appearance.

23CV46838 DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO ACKNOWLEDGE TITLE 48 CFR AFFIDAVIT PRESENTED AS LETTER OF ROGATORY On July 24, 2023, Capital One, N.A. (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint for common counts or account stated against Deanna K. Yates (“Defendant.”) Defendant filed a response on December 4, 2023. Defendant now moves “to Acknowledge Title 48 CFR International Commercial Affidavit Presented as Letter of Rogatory.” Plaintiff opposes the motion. For the reasons set forth below, the Motion is denied. The motion does not comply with Local Rule 3.3.7. All matters noticed for the Law & Motion calendar shall Include the following language in the notice: 3.3.7 Tentative Rulings (Effective 1/1/18) All parties appearing on the Law and Motion calendar shall utilize the tentative ruling system. Tentative Rulings are available by 2:00 p.m. on the court day preceding the scheduled hearing and can be accessed either through the court's website or by telephoning 209-754-6285. The tentative ruling shall become the ruling of the court, unless a party desiring to be heard so advises the Court no later than 4:00 p.m. on the court day preceding the hearing including advising that all other sides have been notified of the intention to appear by calling 209-754-6285. Where appearance has been requested or invited by the Court, all argument and evidence Is limited pursuant to Local Rule 3 3. All matters noticed for the Law & Motion calendar shall Include the following language in the notice: Pursuant to Local Rule 3 3 7, the Court will make a tentative ruling on the merits of this matter by 2:00 p.m. the court day before the hearing. The complete text of the tentative ruling may be accessed on the Court's website or by calling 209-754-6285 and listening to the recorded tentative ruling. If you do not call all other parties and the Court by 4:00 p.m. the court day preceding the hearing, no hearing wiII be held and the tentative ruling shall become the ruling of the court [emphasis in original.] Failure to include this language in the notice may be a basis for the Court to deny the motion. While the Court has authority to deny the motion on this ground alone, in the interests of justice it has considered the substantive merits of the Defendant’s motion and denies the motion on that basis. Legal Analysis Defendant appears to be arguing that Plaintiff’s complaint is invalid on the grounds of what is known as the Sovereign Citizen Movement. The Sovereign Citizen movement is a “loose grouping of litigants, commentators, and tax protestors who often take the position that they are not subject to state or federal statutes and proceedings.” (United States v. Weast (5th Cir. 2016), 811 F.3d 743, 746 fn. 5.) In essence, subscribers to this movement will show up in court “asserting various theories to the effect the court has no jurisdiction over them.” (Ibid.) Courts across all jurisdictions have consistently designated these types of arguments as frivolous.(See e.g., United States v. Studley (9th Cir. 1986), 783 F.2d 934, 937, fn. 4 [the sovereign citizen argument has been “consistently and thoroughly rejected by every branch of the government for decades. Indeed advancement of such utterly meritless arguments is now the basis for serious sanctions imposed on civil litigants who raise them”]; (U.S. v. Benabe, (7th Cir. 2011, 54 F.3d 753, 767 [such theories that a “sovereign citizen” is beyond the jurisdiction of the courts “should be rejected summarily, however they are presented”]; Ceja v. Birkholz, CV 22-1636-FWS(E) (C.D. Cal. May 3, 2022) [citing numerous cases finding sovereign citizen claims to be frivolous and without merit].) California courts may exercise jurisdiction “on any basis not inconsistent with the Constitution of this state or of the United States.” (Code of Civil Procedure §410.10.) This Court has personal jurisdiction because Defendant was properly served with the Summons and Complaint at her residence of 4628 S. Burson Rd., Valley Springs, CA 95252. As regards subject matter jurisdiction this “relates to the inherent authority of the court involved to deal with the case or matter before it.” (Varian Medical Systems, Inc. v. Delfino (2005), 35 Cal.4th 180, 186.) The Defendant has failed to make any valid argument that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s motion is DENIED. The Clerk shall provide notice of the Ruling forthwith. No further formal Order is required. GUARANTY HOLDINGS OF CALIFORNIA, INC. v CATTANEO

No appearances necessary. This is a collections case, as defined in Rule 3.740 of the California Rules of Court, filed January 12, 2024. A proof of service is filed. Plaintiff must obtain default judgment within 360 days of filing the complaint. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.740(f).) This matter is continued for further CMC to November 6, 2024 at 1:30 p.m. in Dept 3.

SIERRA CENTRAL CREDIT UNION VS. GOODWIN Case Number: 23CVG-00253 This matter is on calendar for review regarding status of bankruptcy. Plaintiff filed a Case Management Statement informing the Court that the stay is still in effect. The matter is continued to Tuesday, January 23, 2025 at 9:00 a.m. in Department 63 for status of bankruptcy. No appearance is necessary on today’s calendar.

MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL CVCO2300845 CITIBANK VS CERVANTES FOR ROMAN G CERVANTES Tentative Ruling: No tentative ruling will be issued.