Motion to Continue Trial
23CV002863: TTLC SACRAMENTO - CHAMPION OAKS LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY vs ELK GROVE RESERVE, A CALIFORNIA PARTNERSHIP, et al. 03/07/2025 Hearing on Motion to Continue Trial in Department 47
Tentative Ruling
NOTICE: If oral arguments are requested or appearances are required, the hearing may be conducted in person or remotely via ZoomGov [which includes telephonic and teleconferencing options]. No Court Call appearances will be permitted. If you choose to use Zoom you must use your first and last name on your ZoomGov account so the court can positively identify you. The Department 47 ZoomLink is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept47 and the ZoomGov ID is: 16173813009. Appearances via videoconference using the above link are preferred. To appear on ZoomGov by phone, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the ZoomGov ID referenced above, available phone commands include *6 to mute/unmute or *9 to raise your hand. If you experience issues joining your hearing, please contact the clerk in Department 47 at (916) 874-5487 for assistance.
The notice of motion fails to provide notice of the Courts tentative ruling system as modified for matters appearing on the Law and Motion in the Presiding Judges department. The notice must include both the verbatim notice of the Courts tentative ruling system as set forth in Local Rule 1.06(D) and the verbatim notice of the modifications to the tentative ruling system for motions pending in the Presiding Judges department, as forth in Local Rule 1.06(E). Counsel for moving party shall contact all other parties and advise them of the full tentative ruling system, including that the tentative ruling will be posted two court days prior to the hearing date and that requests for oral argument must be made by noon the court day before the hearing.
The motion of Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant TTLC Sacramento Champion Oaks LLC (Plaintiff) to continue trial is unopposed and GRANTED.
This matter was referred to the trial setting process (TSP) on August 16, 2024. The parties failed to meet and confer and select a mutually agreeable trial date, apparently because the defendants were in the process of changing counsel. (See Zarchy Decl., ¶¶ 3-9.) As a result, the Court scheduled trial for September 23, 2025. The parties continued to meet and confer and agreed trial should be continued. (Id., ¶ 13.)
The Court finds good cause for a continuance based on the agreement of the parties, the need for additional time to complete discovery, the desire of the parties to participate in mediation, and pending further substitution of counsel for the defendants. As it appears the defendants are
23CV002863: TTLC SACRAMENTO - CHAMPION OAKS LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY vs ELK GROVE RESERVE, A CALIFORNIA PARTNERSHIP, et al. 03/07/2025 Hearing on Motion to Continue Trial in Department 47
obtaining new counsel who did not participate in the meet and confer discussions regarding the trial date, the Court will refer this action back to TSP.
The September 23, 2025 trial and August 19, 2025 MSC dates are VACATED.
This case is referred to the Trial Setting Process for selection of Trial and Mandatory Settlement Conference dates. All counsel (including parties appearing in pro per) shall confer and agree upon trial and settlement conference dates. Available dates can be obtained on the court's web site at http://www.saccourt.ca.gov, or by recorded message at 916-874-6098. Plaintiff's counsel must notify the court of the selection of Mandatory Settlement Conference and Trial dates within 60 days of the date of this order by completing the request form at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/civil/trial-setting.aspx. If the parties have not agreed on dates before the 60th day, court staff shall assign Mandatory Settlement Conference and Trial dates that are next available, unless an extension of time has been granted by the appropriate Case Management Program Judge.
This case has been assigned to Department 47 for hearing. In the event that either party requests a hearing the matter will be heard at 9:30 a.m. in Department 47. Any party requesting an oral argument must contact the clerk at (916) 874-5487 and opposing counsel or parties in pro per by 12:00 p.m. on the day before the hearing. If a proper request for hearing is not made, this shall become the order of the Court.
Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government Code section 68086 and California Rules of Court, rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp- 13.Pdf 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 Courts Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list, Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk.
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
23CV002863: TTLC SACRAMENTO - CHAMPION OAKS LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY vs ELK GROVE RESERVE, A CALIFORNIA PARTNERSHIP, et al. 03/07/2025 Hearing on Motion to Continue Trial in Department 47
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 Reporters Office and an official reporter will be provided.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”