American Express National Bank vs. Jose Perez

34-2023-00336052-CL-CL-GDS: American Express National Bank vs. Jose Perez 07/28/2026 Hearing on Motion to Vacate the Conditional Dismissal and for Entry of Judgment in Department 16D

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE: Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on this calendar must comply with the following procedure: To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Department 16D Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-3056 by 4:00 p.m. the court day before the hearing and advise opposing counsel. At the time of requesting oral argument, the requesting party shall leave a voice mail message (a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oral argument; (b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument; and (c) confirming that it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and that opposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below.

If no request for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court. Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely either telephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with notice to the Court and all other parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure §367.75. Although remote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely for non-evidentiary civil hearings.

The Department 16D Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16146506749 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 4650 6749. To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NO COURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED. Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed on the Court Reporter Services webpage available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://saccourt.ca.gov/general-information/court-reporterservices-transcripts.

Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://saccourt.ca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/227/639084034465370000. 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 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. *** EFFECTIVE APRIL 13, 2026, THIS DEPARTMENT HAS MOVED TO THE TANI G.

CANTIL- SAKAUYE COURTHOUSE LOCATED AT 500 G STREET IN SACRAMENTO, CA 95814. ALL HEARINGS 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

Plaintiff American Express National Bank’s (“Bank”) motion to vacate conditional

34-2023-00336052-CL-CL-GDS: American Express National Bank vs. Jose Perez 07/28/2026 Hearing on Motion to Vacate the Conditional Dismissal and for Entry of Judgment in Department 16D

dismissal and enter judgment pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §664.6 is ruled upon as follows.

Factual Background

This is an action to collect over $13,100, which is owed on defendant Perez’s credit card account. In August 2023, the parties negotiated a settlement which was memorialized in a writing signed by both parties, requiring defendant Perez to make minimum monthly installment payments to plaintiff. The settlement further provided that, if defendant Perez defaulted on these payment obligations, plaintiff would be entitled to a judgment for the full amount of damages alleged in the complaint reduced by any installment payments made, plus court costs.

In early November 2024, the Court granted defendant Perez’s attorney’s motion to withdraw, signing an order providing that the withdrawal would be “effective upon the filing of the proof of service of this signed order upon the client,” meaning defendant Perez.

Shortly thereafter, plaintiff Bank filed on 11/8/2024 a motion to vacate the conditional dismissal and enter judgment pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §664.6. The accompanying proof of service attested to service of the moving papers upon defendant Perez himself but not his attorney. Plaintiff Bank’s motion was ultimately dropped from calendar by the Court in its 3/27/2025 ruling because, although defendant Perez’s attorney filed a proof of service of “Notice of Ruling” on the earlier motion to withdraw, the Court’s file included no proof of service of the actual signed formal order upon defendant Perez as required by the express language of the Court’s formal order.

In short, absent proof of service of the actual signed formal order upon defendant Perez, the Court concluded in its 3/27/2025 ruling that defendant Perez’s counsel had not yet been relieved as counsel of record and as a result, plaintiff Bank’s service of its 11/8/2024 motion to vacate dismissal and enter judgment pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §664.6 on defendant Perez himself, without at least including his counsel of record, was not proper. (See, Code Civ. Proc. §1014.)

On 4/13/2026, plaintiff Bank filed the present motion to vacate dismissal and to enter judgment pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §664.6 and like its earlier motion filed on 11/8/2024, the accompanying proof of service attests to service of the moving papers upon defendant Perez himself but not his attorney.

Discussion

The present motion, like the earlier motion, shall be dropped from calendar for the same

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2023-00336052-CL-CL-GDS: American Express National Bank vs. Jose Perez 07/28/2026 Hearing on Motion to Vacate the Conditional Dismissal and for Entry of Judgment in Department 16D

reasons explained in the Court’s 3/27/2025 ruling on plaintiff Bank’s earlier motion. As noted above, the actual signed formal order granting defendant Perez’s attorney’s motion to withdraw expressly provided it would be “effective upon the filing of the proof of service of this signed order upon the client,” defendant Perez himself. The Court’s Register of Action still reflects no such proof of service of this signed order upon defendant Perez, but instead merely shows that on 11/1/2024 (and three days before the Court actually signed the actual formal order granting the motion to withdraw), defendant Perez’s attorney served a “Notice of Ruling” on the earlier motion to withdraw.

This, however, remains insufficient to comply with the express language of the actual signed formal order dated 11/4/2026 and as a result, it remains true that defendant Perez’s counsel has not yet been relieved as counsel of record.

Accordingly, because defendant Perez’s counsel has not yet been relieved as counsel of record, plaintiff Bank’s service of the present motion to vacate dismissal and enter judgment pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §664.6 on defendant Perez himself, without at least including his counsel of record, is again not proper. (See, Code Civ. Proc. §1014.) Therefore, this motion is DROPPED from calendar due to defective service of notice which deprives the Court of jurisdiction to entertain the present motion. (See, e.g., Lee v. Placer Title Co. (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 503, 509.)

Moving party to provide notice of this ruling and file proof of service of same on defendant Perez’s counsel of record within five (5) court days.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc. §1019.5; CRC Rule 3.1312.)