Petition of CSAA Insurance Exchange

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

34-2022-00321738-CU-PT-GDS: Petition of CSAA Insurance Exchange 07/08/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other to Vacate Judgment and Enter Judgment Under Code of Civil Procedure Section 663(a) in Department 8D

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

***NOTICE: EFFECTIVE APRIL 13, 2026, THIS DEPARTMENT HAS MOVED TO THE TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE COURTHOUSE LOCATED AT 500 G. ST. SACRAMENTO, CA. ALL MOTIONS NOTICED FOR DEPARTMENT 25 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 8D 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****

TENTATIVE RULING

Self-represented claimant Harold Rucker’s (“Claimant”) motion to vacate judgment under Code of Civil Procedure section 663 is ruled on as set forth herein.

Factual Background

This matter arises from Claimant’s motor vehicle accident with an uninsured motorist. On April 20, 2026, this Court granted respondent CSAA Insurance Exchange’s (“Respondent”) motion to dismiss based on Claimant’s failure to arbitrate within the five-year deadline under Insurance Code section 11580.2, subdivision (i)(2)(A). In its order, the Court found that Claimant formally demanded arbitration on April 1, 2020, that the parties’ subsequent agreement required that arbitration be completed no later than September 5, 2025, and that arbitration was not completed before such date.

The Court also found that Claimant failed to demonstrate that his noncompliance was due to estoppel, waiver, impossibility, impracticality, and/or futility under Insurance Code section 11580.2, subdivision (i)(3). Upon granting Respondent’s motion, the Court instructed Respondent to prepare a proposed order and judgment forthwith. The Court deemed the ruling its Statement of Decision pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 632. (Min. Order, Apr. 20, 2026.)

On April 30, 2026, Claimant filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s April 20, 2026 order, which is currently scheduled to be heard on October 12, 2026. The same day, Claimant filed an objection to the proposed statement of decision set forth in the Court’s April 20, 2026 Order. On May 1, 2026, Respondent filed its proposed order and judgment. On May 4, 2026 Claimant filed an objection to the May 1, 2026 proposed order. On June 1, 2026, the Court

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2022-00321738-CU-PT-GDS: Petition of CSAA Insurance Exchange 07/08/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other to Vacate Judgment and Enter Judgment Under Code of Civil Procedure Section 663(a) in Department 8D

ordered a hearing on Petitioner’s objections to the statement of decision on October 12, 2026 to be heard at the same time as the pending motion for reconsideration. The Court also deferred taking action on the proposed order and judgment in light of the pending motion for reconsideration. (Min. Order, June 1, 2026.)

On May 13, 2026, Claimant filed the present motion to vacate judgment under Code of Civil Procedure section 663, which was initially scheduled to be heard on June 8, 2026; however, the Court on its own motion continued the hearing date to October 12, 2026 and ordered “No further briefing permitted without leave of Court.” (Min. Order, June 8, 2026.) The Court subsequently granted Claimant’s request to advanced the hearing date for the present motion within 75 days of its filing, as provided under Code of Civil Procedure section 663a, subdivision (b). (Min Order, June 15, 2026.) On June 18, 2026, Respondent filed an ex parte application for permission to submit additional briefing in conjunction with the Motion to Vacate, which Claimant opposed.

On June 22, 2026, Claimant filed a notice of filing of appeal with the Third Appellate District of the California Court of Appeal. The Notice of Appeal relates to appeal of the Court’s April 20, 2026 Order, which is the subject of the motion. On June 23, the Court dropped Respondent’s ex parte request in light of the Notice of Appeal.

On June 26, 2026, Claimant filed a notice of abandonment of appeal. The abandonment of the appeal restores this Court’s jurisdiction. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.244(b)(1).)

Subsequently, on July 2, 2026 and July 6, 2026, Claimant filed four unauthorized supplemental or amended declarations in relation to the pending motion without seeking leave of court. The Court does not consider the declarations to the extent they raise issues or arguments outside of the initial moving papers. The Court will consider arguments made in such declarations to the extent they are within the scope of the notice of motion and to the extent it is made “as Claimant’s] oral argument.” (Rucker Decl., filed July 2, 2026, ¶ 1; Rucker Supp. Decl., filed July 6, 2026, ¶ 1.)

Claimant moves to vacate the proposed judgment on grounds that the Court failed to apply to the tolling provision under section 1367(d) of title 28 of the United States Code to Claimant’s fiveyear arbitration deadline. (See Notice of Motion, filed 5/13/26, at p. 1 [“I, Harold J. Rucker Jr., respectfully move this Court to vacate its April 20, 2026 Judgment and Statement of Decision dismissing Claimant’s Uninsured Motorist claim, and to enter judgment denying Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss, on the ground that this Court erred as a matter of law by failing to apply the federally mandated tolling provision of 28 U.S.C. 1367(d). This is meant to preserve State SOL while cases are pending within Federal Jurisdiction.”].)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2022-00321738-CU-PT-GDS: Petition of CSAA Insurance Exchange 07/08/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other to Vacate Judgment and Enter Judgment Under Code of Civil Procedure Section 663(a) in Department 8D

Legal Standard

“Code of Civil Procedure section 663 permits the court to vacate its judgment if it determines the judgment is ‘[i]ncorrect or erroneous’ as a matter of law or inconsistent with or unsupported by the facts. In ruling on a motion to vacate the judgment the court cannot in any way change any finding of fact.” [Citation.]” (Glen Hill Farm, LLC v. California Horse Racing Bd. (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 1296, 1302.) As applicable here, “[a] party intending to make a motion to set aside and vacate a judgment, as described in section 663 shall file with the clerk and serve upon the adverse party a notice of his or her intention . . . after the decision is rendered and before entry of judgment.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 663a, subd. (a)(1).)

Discussion

Claimant argues that, by bringing a federal action in the United States District Court on September 2, 2025, the statutory deadline to arbitrate was effectively tolled under section 1367(d) of title 28 of the United States Code. Claimant contends that he brought an action against Respondent alleging breach of contract, bad faith, and civil rights claims arising from the same set of facts as alleged in this action, and that he voluntarily dismissed his federal complaint on March 30, 2026. Citing Artis v.

District of Columbia (2018) 583 U.S. 71, Claimant also asserts that he was an entitled to an additional 30-day grace period after the dismissal of his federal complaint, such that his claims in the present action were held in abeyance until April 29, 2026. Claimant thus argues that this Court’s April 20, 2026 order granting Respondent’s motion to dismiss for failure to arbitrate was premature and incorrect as a matter of law.

Under the federal supplemental jurisdiction statute, the statute of limitations for state law claims that are filed in federal court on the basis of supplemental jurisdiction is tolled while the case remains pending in federal court. (See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(d).) The Fourth Appellate District of California Court of Appeal has summarized section 1367 of title 28 as follows:

But if the federal court dismisses all claims over which it has original jurisdiction, it may decline to exercise this supplemental jurisdiction and dismiss the state law claims without prejudice. (28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).) To prevent the risk that the applicable state statute of limitations would run on those claims while they are pending in federal court and preclude their refiling in state court, section 1367(d) establishes a tolling rule: “The period of limitations for any claim asserted under [the court’s supplemental jurisdiction] shall be tolled while the claim is pending and for a period of 30 days after it is dismissed unless State law provides for a longer tolling period.”

(Feliz v. County of Orange (2023) 91 Cal.App.5th 927, 933.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2022-00321738-CU-PT-GDS: Petition of CSAA Insurance Exchange 07/08/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other to Vacate Judgment and Enter Judgment Under Code of Civil Procedure Section 663(a) in Department 8D

Here, Claimant’s interpretation of section 1367 of title 28 incorrectly presumes that it is able to toll limitations periods for ongoing state court claims. Rather, as set forth above, the federal supplemental jurisdiction standard applies to state law claims first brought in federal court that are subsequently dismissed. (See, e.g., Anderson v. Herbet (10th Cir. 2018) 745 Fed.Appx. 63, 68 [“Section 1367(d) preserves a state-law claim that is asserted in a federal proceeding and then is dismissed. It does not indefinitely suspend the limitations period for a state-law claim that first is brought in a state-court action.”].) As the instant action was first brought in state court, section 1367(d) not applicable here.

Further, section 1367(d) is also inapplicable to this case, as the section applies to tolling “statutes of limitations” for “asserting” (i.e., filing) actions in state court. In this case, neither Respondent’s motion nor the Court’s order was based on the “statute of limitations” applicable to the causes of action asserted in this case. Rather, the Court’s April 20, 2026 Order granted Respondent’s motion to dismiss based on Claimant’s failure to arbitrate within the applicable deadline under Insurance Code section 11580.2, subdivision (i)(2)(A). This deadline is separate and unrelated to the statute of limitations governing the filing deadline for Claimant’s initial pleadings. As such, by its plain language, section 1367(d) is and was inapplicable to the April 20, 2026 Order.

Based on the foregoing, the Court concludes Claimant has not shown that the Court’s judgment was incorrect or erroneous as a matter of law. Therefore, the motion is DENIED.

Disposition

Claimant’s motion to vacate judgment 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.)