AUSSIEKER vs CMS, INC, 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

25CV000864: AUSSIEKER vs CMS, INC, et al. 04/20/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Responses to Case Questionnaire in Department 8D

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.

TENTATIVE RULING:

This matter came before the court on March 9, 2026, on motion of Plaintiff in pro per Mark Aussieker (“Plaintiff”) to compel Defendant Homes Panorama LLC (“Homes Panorama”) responses to Judicial Council Form DISC-010 (Case Questionnaire—For Limited Civil Cases).

Following the hearing on March 9, 2026, the Court continued this matter to April 20, 2026, and issued the following in its Minute Order:

[T]he Court asked Plaintiff whether he had informed counsel of record for Defendant regarding attendance at the hearing, as required by Local Rule 1.06. Plaintiff represented to the Court that he understood that Defendant’s counsel was no longer eligible to practice law in California.

Defendant’s counsel that has made appearances (special or otherwise) in this case on behalf of Defendant remains Counsel of Record. There is no withdrawal or substitution on the Court’s Register of Actions. There has been nothing filed with the Court to put it on official notice— without supporting documents—of Defendant’s counsel’s purported inability to practice law.

Defendant’s counsel is ordered to provide a copy of this Order on Defendants within five (5) days of this order and submit a declaration or proof of service regarding such notice/service with the Court within ten (10) days of this Order. If Defendants’ counsel is no longer authorized to practice law in California, counsel should immediately take appropriate steps to remove itself as Counsel of Record in this case and provide appropriate notice to the Court and Plaintiff regarding the proper contact information for Defendant for purposes of service. The Court notes that Defendant, as a corporate entity, cannot represent itself or appear on its own behalf without licensed Counsel. If Defendant’s counsel is authorized

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV000864: AUSSIEKER vs CMS, INC, et al. 04/20/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Responses to Case Questionnaire in Department 8D

to practice law in California, Counsel shall file and serve a declaration regarding same within ten (10) days of this Order.

(3/9/26 Order.)

Despite the Court’s order, there have been no subsequent filings by Defendant’s counsel or on behalf of Defendants since the March 9, 2026, hearing. Plaintiff’s representation regarding Defendant’s counsel’s ineligibility to practice law presents circumstances that require the Court to ensure proper notice and an opportunity to respond by all Parties, including those represented by the purportedly ineligible counsel. As the Court of Appeal recently explained in Prato v. Gioia (2025) 112 Cal.App.5th 651, 656:

Inactive status renders an attorney ineligible to practice law. . . . And a litigant abandoned by counsel is not the same as a self-represented litigant, who might be expected to appear on her own.

Specifically, the Prato Court held that Code of Civil Procedure section 286 applies when an attorney has been removed, suspended, or is otherwise ineligible to practice law, such as by being placed on inactive status by the State Bar. (Id. at pp. 656, 661-662.)

Section 286 provides:

When an attorney dies, or is removed or suspended, or ceases to act as such, a party to an action, for whom he was acting as attorney, must, before any further proceedings are had against him, be required by the adverse party, by written notice, to appoint another attorney, or to appear in person.

The Prato Court further recognized that the California Supreme Court has stated “that it would be prejudicial and injurious to a party if her attorney is rendered unable to practice and the opposing party fails to provide the notice required under section 286. If the unrepresented party then fails to appear at a proceeding in which an adverse action is taken against her, the failure to give timely notice would represent a serious flaw in the proceedings.” (Prato, supra, 112 Cal.App.5th at p. 662, emphasis added, citing Nicol v. San Francisco (1900) 130

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV000864: AUSSIEKER vs CMS, INC, et al. 04/20/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Responses to Case Questionnaire in Department 8D

Cal. 288, 288–289.) “Indeed, when a party is aware that his or her opponent is without representation, that party must give notice under section 286.” (Ibid., citing McMunn v. Lehrke (1915) 29 Cal.App. 298, 307-308.)

Accordingly, the Prato Court directed, as follows:

[A]ny party who becomes aware that an opponent’s attorney has been made involuntarily inactive and ineligible to practice law by the State Bar must promptly give notice to his or her opponent under section 286. We also hold that trial courts, when notified of an attorney’s involuntarily inactive status, are encouraged to order counsel to issue section 286 notice to the affected party before further proceedings may be taken against him or her.

(Prato, supra, 112 Cal.App.5th at p. 656.)

Based on the foregoing, the Court makes the following orders:

(1) Plaintiff is directed to file and serve notice, under Code of Civil Procedure section 286, to the opposing party regarding the counsel’s ineligibility to practice law. The notice should include documents that provide the basis for Plaintiff’s understanding regarding Counsel’s ineligibility to practice law. Plaintiff shall file and serve such notice, and provide proof of service regarding same, no later than May 4, 2026.

(2) Service shall be effected on Defendants’ counsel of record and both named Defendants.

(3) This matter is continued to May 18, 2026 at 1:30 p.m. in Department 8D.

(4) The Court also concurrently issues an Order to Show Cause regarding Counsel’s failure to comply with the Court’s March 9, 2026 Orders.