WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. vs. VICTORIA BOLSHAKOFF, an individual

January 12, 2026 Truckee Civil Law & Motion Tentative Rulings

1. CL0002298 WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. vs. VICTORIA BOLSHAKOFF, an individual

No appearances required. On the Court’s own motion, the default prove up hearing is continued to February 9, 2026 at 1:30 p.m. in Dept. A. Plaintiff is to provide notice to the defaulted defendant as Plaintiff is seeking an order according to proof. Thus, even a defaulted defendant is entitled to notice and an opportunity to be heard as to any matter not specifically requested in a complaint. In addition, Plaintiff was ordered to provide notice to Defendant of the previously vacated trial date, yet there is no indication in the file such occurred. Accordingly, Plaintiff is ordered to file a proof of service evidencing Defendant has been served with the following: Notice of Prove Up Hearing; all Declarations in support of requested orders; a proposed Judgment.

2. CL0002884 Bank of America, N.A. vs. Larrisa Ann Cassella

Appearance required by Plaintiff to show cause as to why this case should not be dismissed and/or Plaintiff sanctioned for failure to serve the Summons and Complaint on Defendant despite the fact this case has been pending for over seven (7) months and the Court previously ordered Plaintiff to file a proof of service, application to serve by publication, or request for dismissal of defendant in advance of this order to show cause date. Absent good cause being shown, the Court intends to set the matter for dismissal pursuant to CCP section 583.420 and vacate the trial date set for February 20, 2026 at 11:00 a.m.

3. CL0003155 Capital One N.A. vs. John R Dasilva

On the Court’s own motion, the OSC as to Plaintiff is DISMISSED. Plaintiff has now filed a proof of service evidencing service of the summons and complaint on the sole named defendant. The trial date remains as set.

4. CU0000485 Hicks, Jennifer et al v. Sokolow, Sonia et al

Appearances required. The Court is aware Plaintiffs have set a prove up hearing and filed multiple documents in relation to same. However, there is no proof of service filed evidencing Defendant Sokolow has been served with notice of prove up hearing, the various documents Plaintiffs seek to have the Court consider at the time of hearing or the proposed judgment. In addition, the Court wishes to clarify with Plaintiffs any issues related to the fact they have settled these claims with other named defendants such that there may be double recovery issues. In addition, the proposed Judgment does not seek any recovery. Finally, there remain DOE defendants. Absent clarifying and rectifying these issues, the Court is inclined to vacate the prove up hearing.