BATKA vs BARRIE, et al.

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 be forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

TENTATIVE RULING

***NOTICE: EFFECTIVE APRIL 13, 2026, THIS DEPARTMENT HAS MOVED TO THE TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE COURTHOUSE LOCATED AT 500 G STREET SACRAMENTO, CA. ALL MOTIONS NOTICED FOR DEPARTMENT 28 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 8C OF THE NEW COURTHOUSE. ALL PAPERS FOR THIS DEPARTMENT MUST BE FILED AT THIS NEW LOCATION AND WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED AT THE HALL OF JUSTICE. ALL HEARINGS WILL TAKE PLACE AT THIS NEW LOCATION***

Plaintiff Rudy Batka’s (“Plaintiff”) motion to deem matters admitted against Defendant in pro per Jade Barrie (“Barrie”) is UNOPPOSED but is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

This is Plaintiff’s second motion to deem matters admitted. On January 26, 2026, the Court denied Plaintiff’s first motion without prejudice, stating:

Plaintiff’s counsel’s declaration does not include any of the exhibits identified therein,

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV015411: BATKA vs BARRIE, et al. 07/06/2026 Hearing on Motion to Deem Request for Admissions Admitted in Department 8C

including the subject requests for admission. Regarding service of the admissions, Plaintiff’s counsel’s declaration states: “Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of Plaintiff’s Requests for Admission, Set One, including the proof of service dated June 20, 2025.” (Boggus Decl., ¶ 5.) Since no additional information is provided in the declaration regarding service of the requests, and since the requests themselves are not attached to the declaration, the evidence is insufficient for the Court to conclude that the requests were properly served on Barrie.

(01/26/2026 Minute Order, p. 1, bold in original.)

With the present motion, Plaintiff’s counsel has submitted a declaration that again states, “Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of Plaintiff’s Requests for Admission, Set One, including the proof of service dated June 20, 2025.” (Boggus Decl., ¶ 5.) Although the exhibit is attached as stated, the proof of service for the requests states that the requests were served on Barrie via email. (See Boggus Decl., Exh. A, p. 5.) Electronic service on an unrepresented party is only valid if the unrepresented party has consented to receive electronic service. (Code Civ.

Proc. § 1010.6(c).) There is no evidence that Barrie has provided such consent. Additionally, the proof of service does not include an email address for Barrie as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 1013b(b)(3). Thus, even if Barrie had consented to receive electronic service, the proof of service for the requests would be insufficient to establish valid electronic service.

The defects described above may be overcome if there is additional evidence of valid service of the requests, such as a statement in Plaintiff’s counsel’s declaration that she served the requests via mail, or a declaration from the person who signed the proof of service stating that the requests were served via mail, particularly since the motion is unopposed. However, no such evidence has been provided, as Plaintiff’s counsel’s declaration only authenticates Exhibit A and lets the document speak for itself. (See Boggus Decl., ¶ 5.)

Since the Court is unable to conclude that the requests were properly served on Barrie, Plaintiff has not established that he is entitled to the relief sought via this motion. Thus, the motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

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.)