Document for US LBM Operating Co 3009 LLC vs Skylar Barton Construction, LLC, Skylar Barton, Daniel Schultz, Christina Schultz, XYZ Corporation, ABC Partnership, John Doe and Mary Roe, whose true names are unknown to Plaintiff

DISCOVER BANK VS MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL CVCO2300997 CERVANTES FOR CAROLINA CERVANTES Tentative Ruling: No tentative ruling will be issued.

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.

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 on 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.

ET AL. Case Number: 23CV-0201860 Tentative Ruling on Order to Show Cause Re Dismissal: An Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (“OSC”) issued on June 24, 2024, pursuant to Gov’t Code § 68608(b) to Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s Counsel for failure to appear at the June 17, 2024, hearing as ordered on February 20, 2024. No response to the OSC has been filed. The Court previously sanctioned Plaintiff and Counsel for failure to timely serve the parties. The parties have not been served. The sanctions have not been paid. It appears Plaintiff has abandoned this action and lesser sanctions would not be effective. The Court DISMISSES this action. The clerk is instructed to prepare a separate Order of Dismissal. No appearance is necessary on today’s calendar. ****************************************************************************** 9:00 a.m. Review Hearings ******************************************************************************

23CV-04296 Capital One N.A v.Sergio Alvarado Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings 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. SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF MERCED Restraining Orders Hon. Jennifer O. Trimble Courtroom 12 1159 G Street, Los Banos Thursday, July 25, 2024 11:00 a.m. The following tentative rulings shall become the ruling of the court unless a party gives notice of intention to appear as follows: 1. You must call (209) 725-4111 to notify the court of your intent to appear. 2. You must give notice to all other parties before 4:00 p.m. of your intent to appear. Per California Rules of Court, rule 3.1308(a)(1), failure to do both items 1 and 2 will result in no oral argument. Note: Notifying Court Call (the court’s telephonic appearance provider) of your intent to appear does not satisfy the requirement of notifying the court. IMPORTANT: Court Reporters will NOT be provided; parties wanting a hearing transcript must make their own arrangements. Case No. Title / Description

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.

CV-23-006622 – DISCOVER BANK vs FERNANDEZ, MANUEL – Plaintiff Discover Bank’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings – GRANTED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND, and unopposed.   The Court GRANTS the request to take judicial notice of the answer and complaint filed in this case. The answer admits all allegations in the complaint as true and does not assert any affirmative defenses.   Based on the pleadings, the Court finds that the complaint states facts sufficient to constitute causes of action against the defendant, and the answer does not state facts sufficient to constitute a defense to the complaint. (Code Civ. Proc., § 438(c)(1)(A).) Defendant, who did not oppose this motion, has not given the Court any reason to grant leave to amend. (Cf. Today's IV, Inc. v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (2022) 83 Cal.App.5th 1137, 1176, reh'g denied (Oct. 25, 2022), review denied (Jan. 18, 2023).)   Consequently, the unopposed motion is GRANTED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. The Court will sign the proposed order and the proposed judgment submitted by Plaintiff. Court trial date to be vacated.   Due to the interruption of telephone service as a result of an outage, any party requesting a hearing must make the request via email to the court clerk. If V-Court is not available and an in-person appearance is not possible, appearance must be via Zoom. Sign-up information for Zoom will be available on the court’s website.