Umar N. Saeed, individually and as assignee of Naiel Enterprises vs. Sandeep Badhan

34-2021-00298634-CU-BT-GDS: Umar N. Saeed, individually and as assignee of Naiel Enterprises vs. Sandeep Badhan 05/22/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other Motion for reconsideration of Courts order dated 04/03/2026 in Department 17A

Procedure § 583.310.” (Notice, p. 2:2-6.) Second, the notice of motion requests “the court reconsider its denial of relief under Code of Civil Procedure § 583.340(c) with respect to a recalculation of the 5 years due to impossibility, impracticability, futility, and for reasons of estoppel as applied to respective defendants.” (Notice, p. 2:6-9.) The Court addresses these requests in turn.

Reconsideration of Order Denying Motion to Specially Set Trial

“When an application for an order has been made to a judge, or to a court, and refused in whole or in part, or granted, or granted conditionally, or on terms, any party affected by the order may, within 10 days after service upon the party of written notice of entry of the order and based upon new or different facts, circumstances, or law, make application to the same judge or court that made the order, to reconsider the matter and modify, amend, or revoke the prior order. The party making the application shall state by affidavit what application was made before, when and to what judge, what order or decisions were made, and what new or different facts, circumstances, or law are claimed to be shown.” (Code Civ.

Proc. § 1008(a).) “The party seeking reconsideration must provide not just new evidence or different facts, but a satisfactory explanation for the failure to produce it at an earlier time.” (Glade v. Glade (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 1141, 1457; Mink v. Superior Court (1992) 2 Cal.App.4th 1338, 1342.) With respect to motions for reconsideration by a civil litigant, the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure § 1008 are jurisdictional. (Kerns v. CSE Ins. Group (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 368.)

Plaintiff submits a declaration from Counsel identifying various records, emails, and statements that Plaintiff believes supports a finding of tolling of the deadline to commence trial. However, on their face, each of these records and communications occurred before the initial hearing on Plaintiff’s motion. Plaintiff has failed to explain why this evidence could not have been produced in support of the original motion. Plaintiff has also failed to identify any new or different law that would support a request for reconsideration.

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate the existence of new or different facts, circumstances, or law that were not considered at the original hearing and could not have been reasonably presented at the hearing. Plaintiff has therefore failed to satisfy the requirements for a motion for reconsideration.

Reconsideration of denial of relief under Code of Civil Procedure § 583.340(c)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2021-00298634-CU-BT-GDS: Umar N. Saeed, individually and as assignee of Naiel Enterprises vs. Sandeep Badhan 05/22/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other Motion for reconsideration of Courts order dated 04/03/2026 in Department 17A

Plaintiff’s request for reconsideration of the denial of relief under Code of Civil Procedure § 583.340(c) is denied as moot, as there is no order in the record denying such relief. The Court’s April 3, 2026 order expressly denied Plaintiff’s motion to specially set trial. The Court’s order did not contain any ruling on a request for relief under Code of Civil Procedure § 583.340(c), nor was any such request for relief properly before the Court at the hearing on April 3, 2026.

Plaintiff’s March 23, 2026 ex parte application sought solely an order specially setting trial before April 13, 2026 and did not include a request that the Court find the deadline to commence trial had been tolled. The Court set a hearing on shortened time for a motion to specially set trial before April 13, 2026. The Court’s order did not authorize Plaintiff to pursue additional relief related to the tolling of the deadline to commence trial on shortened time[1]. Thus, Plaintiff was required to seek any such relief in accordance with the ordinary statutory notice requirements. Plaintiff’s motion, filed on March 27, 2026, did not provide the required statutory notice for a request to toll the deadline to commence trial. Thus, the Court lacked jurisdiction to grant any such relief at the April 3, 2026 hearing and made no final ruling as to whether the deadline has been tolled.

As the Court did not make a final ruling as to whether the deadline to commence trial has been tolled, there is no order which may be reconsidered at this time. Even if the Court had made such a final ruling, the motion to reconsider would be denied because Plaintiff has failed to identify any new or different facts, circumstances, or law that were not and could not reasonably have been presented at the original hearing.

Disposition

The motion for reconsideration is denied. This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1019.5; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1312.)

This case has been assigned to Department 17A for hearing. In the event that either party requests a hearing the matter will be heard at 9:30 a.m. in Department 17A. Any party requesting an oral argument must contact the clerk at (916) 874-5487 and opposing counsel or parties in pro per by 12:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing. If a proper request for hearing is not made, this shall become the order of the Court.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2021-00298634-CU-BT-GDS: Umar N. Saeed, individually and as assignee of Naiel Enterprises vs. Sandeep Badhan 05/22/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other Motion for reconsideration of Courts order dated 04/03/2026 in Department 17A

Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government Code section 68086 and California Rules of Court, rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp- 13.Pdf A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list, Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk.

If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

[1] Notably, a motion to find the deadline to commence trial has been tolled is not among the enumerated motions

heard by the Presiding Judge. (Local Rule 1.05.) To the extent any such motion is proper, it must be filed in the Civil Home Court assigned to the action.