IN THE MATTER OF: CITY OF SACRAMENTO

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.

25CV008603: IN THE MATTER OF: CITY OF SACRAMENTO 07/14/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other for Final Sale Approval in Department 16D

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.

****NOTICE: EFFECTIVE APRIL 13, 2026, THIS DEPARTMENT HAS MOVED TO THE TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE COURTHOUSE LOCATED AT 500 G. ST. SACRAMENTO, CA. MOTIONS NOTICED FOR DEPARTMENT 53 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 16D OF THE NEW COURTHOUSE. PARTIES MAY CONTINUE TO APPEAR REMOTELY IN DEPARTMENT 16D UNLESS SPECIFICALLY ORDERED OTHERWISE.*****

TENTATIVE RULING:

Receiver Richardson Griswold’s unopposed[1] motion for final sale approval is granted.

In the instant nuisance abatement action brought by the City of Sacramento, the Receiver was appointed pursuant to an order entered August 19, 2025. On February 25, 2026, this Court entered an order authorizing the Receiver to list the real property at 3910 and 3912 Marysville Boulevard, Sacramento, California 95838.

Receiver now seeks approval of a proposed sale of the property for a price of $255,000, consisting of $185,000 for 3910 Marysville Boulevard and $70,000 for 3912 Marysville Boulevard. The Receiver obtained a real estate agent to assist with the sale. The property was listed at $225,000 for 3910 Marysville Boulevard and $100,000 for 3912 Marysville Boulevard on February 27, 2026 based on the real estate agent’s recommendation. (Griswold Decl., ¶ 6.) Ultimately, the Receiver accepted an offer from a buyer who offered $255,000. (Id., ¶ 9.)

The buyer is required to complete the rehabilitation of the property under the Receiver’s supervision as a condition of the sale. (Id., ¶ 11.) The Receiver believes that the sale represents the strongest viable offer to complete the objectives of rehabilitating the property. (Ibid.) The proceeds from the sale are sufficient to satisfy the liens on the property, including the Receiver’s Certificate. (Id. ¶ 12.) The total net sale proceeds will be $118,115.10, which will be used to pay the outstanding and ongoing fees and costs of the receivership pending the buyer’s rehabilitation of the property. (Ibid.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV008603: IN THE MATTER OF: CITY OF SACRAMENTO 07/14/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other for Final Sale Approval in Department 16D

A receiver may, pursuant to an order of the court, sell real or personal property in the receiver's possession upon the notice and in the manner prescribed by Article 6 (commencing with Section 701.510) of Chapter 3 of Division 2 of Title 9. The sale is not final until confirmed by the court. A receiver's sale is a judicial sale, as distinguished from an execution sale; it has been explicitly held that trial courts may authorize receivers to sell property at either private or public sales. (People v.

Riverside University (1973) 35 Cal.App.3d 572, 583.) A trial court’s discretion allows a court to approve a sale previously concluded without prior court authorization. (Id. at 585.) A court should confirm a receiver sale if the sale is just, fair, and in the interest of all parties concerned. (Cal American Income Property Fund VII v. Brown Development Corp. (1982) 138 Cal.App.3d 268, 274.) Judicial confirmation of a receiver sale rests within the trial court’s sound discretion in view of all surrounding facts and circumstances. (ld.)

Additionally, the trial court “has the power to order the sale of property free and clear of liens and encumbrances.” (City of Riverside v. Horspool (2014) 223 Cal. App. 4th 670, 684. Here, the Receiver has obtained a purchase offer which he believes is the best possible offer considering the objectives in rehabilitating the property. The proposed sale appears just, fair, and in the best interests of all involved.

No timely and proper opposition to the motion was filed. A party’s failure to oppose a motion is construed as a concession on the merits of the motion. (See D.I. Chadbourne, Inc. v. Superior Court (1964) 60 Cal.2d 723, 728, n.4.)

The motion is granted on the terms set forth in the motion.

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.)

[1] On July 2, 2026, a 204 page, partially hand-written document (consisting almost

entirely of attached annotated documents) bearing the title, “Opposition to Proposed Order Receivership Notice of Judicial Courts Removal 38 C.F.R. 3.33 Dept of Veterans Affairs [illegible]” was filed in the instant matter. It is not clear whether the document is intended to be an opposition to the instant motion as it does not include a memorandum of points and authorities or otherwise clearly indicate that it opposes this specific motion. To the extent this document was intended to be an opposition, the Court, in its discretion, declines to consider the document as it was filed after the opposition deadline of June 30, 2025. Further, this document is not accompanied by a proof of service indicating any, much less timely, service on the Receiver and other parties to

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV008603: IN THE MATTER OF: CITY OF SACRAMENTO 07/14/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other for Final Sale Approval in Department 16D

this action. Indeed, the Receiver filed a “Notice of Non-Opposition” on July 7, 2026, presumably unaware that this document was filed on July 2, 2026. The lack of proof of service provides yet another ground for not considering this document. Additionally, even if this filing had intended to be an opposition to the present motion and had been filed and served properly, it still would not be considered because it does not appear to be filed by licensed legal counsel. The caption on the first page includes a handwritten notation at the top left which states, in part, “CEO Victory Tabernacle,” followed by an address.

To the extent this document was intended to be an opposition of Defendant Victory Tabernacle of Del Paso Heights, Inc., it was required to be filed by licensed legal counsel stating its appearance and State Bar membership number in the top left corner of the first page. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.111(1).) A corporate entity, such Victory Tabernacle of Del Paso Heights, Inc., may not appear in pro per or be represented by someone who is not an attorney licensed under California law. (See, e.g., CLD Construction, Inc. v.

City of San Ramon (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 1141, 1145 [“a corporation, unlike a natural person[,] cannot represent itself in propria persona, nor can it represent itself through a corporate officer, director or other employee who is not an attorney. It must be represented by licensed counsel ”].) Thus, on its face, the filed document is improperly filed and subject to being stricken.