JONES vs SAC AUTO GROUP

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 be forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

TENTATIVE RULING

***NOTICE: EFFECTIVE APRIL 13, 2026, THIS DEPARTMENT HAS MOVED TO THE TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE COURTHOUSE LOCATED AT 500 G STREET SACRAMENTO, CA. ALL MOTIONS NOTICED FOR DEPARTMENT 28 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 8C 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***

Plaintiff in pro per LeVar Emerson Jones’s (“Plaintiff”) motion to strike as untimely the Answer filed on April 28, 2026 by Defendant in pro per Jessica Naomi Cuevas Gutierrez dba Sac Auto Group is DENIED.

The notice of motion does not provide notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system, as required by Local Rule 1.06. Plaintiff is directed to contact Defendant and advise of Local Rule 1.06 and the Court’s tentative ruling procedure and the manner to request a hearing. If Plaintiff is unable to contact Defendant prior to the hearing, Plaintiff is ordered to appear at the hearing by

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

26CV002300: JONES vs SAC AUTO GROUP 08/05/2026 Hearing on Motion to Strike Untimely Answer in Department 8C

Zoom or in person.

As an initial matter, the Court has not considered Plaintiff’s initial moving papers filed on May 5, 2026, as Plaintiff filed entirely new moving papers on June 15, 2026 after the Court advanced the hearing date. The Court deems the June 15, 2026 moving papers to supersede the May 5, 2026 papers.

Plaintiff filed this action on January 29, 2026 and filed a First Amended Complaint on February 5, 2026. On February 18, 2026, Plaintiff filed a proof of service purporting to show service of a statement of damages on Defendant via personal service. On February 20, 2026, Plaintiff filed a proof of service purporting to show service of various documents on Defendant via personal service on February 17, 2026. The February 20 proof of service lists the documents served as “Amended Complaint-Personal Injury, Property Damage, Wrongful Death, Cause of Action- Intentional Tort, Civil Case Cover Sheet.” (Proof of Service filed 02/20/2026, § 2.) There is no proof of service of the summons on file.

On April 16, 2026, Plaintiff filed a request for entry of default. On April 28, 2026, before the default request was processed, Defendant filed an Answer. As noted above, Plaintiff filed this motion on May 5, 2026 and filed new moving papers on June 15, 2026. On June 18, 2026, the clerk rejected Plaintiff’s request for entry of default, citing the Answer on file and that there was no proof of service of the summons.

A defendant’s deadline to file an answer is “within 30 days after summons is served on the defendant.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 412.20(a)(3).) Since there is no evidence that Defendant was served with the summons, Defendant was not obligated to respond to the Complaint, and thus Defendant’s Answer filed on April 28, 2026 was not untimely and is not subject to a motion to strike. Thus, the motion to strike the Answer on the basis that it was untimely filed is DENIED.

To the extent Plaintiff moves to strike certain affirmative defenses in the Answer, the motion is DENIED. The appropriate vehicle to attack affirmative defenses is a demurrer, not a motion to strike. (See Pierson v. Sharp Mem’l Hosp. (1989) 216 Cal.App.3d 340, 342; see also Code Civ. Proc. § 430.20(a).) Additionally, the grounds for a demurrer or motion to strike must appear on the face of the pleading or from matters subject to judicial notice. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 430.30(a), 437(a).) Thus, Plaintiff’s submission of extrinsic evidence in support of his motion is improper. Additionally, there is no declaration from Plaintiff or other information to authenticate the exhibits.

Finally, Plaintiff has not established that he met and conferred with Defendant before filing this motion as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 435.5. While this is not a basis to deny the motion (Code Civ. Proc. § 435.5(a)(4)), Plaintiff is admonished that the meet and confer

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

26CV002300: JONES vs SAC AUTO GROUP 08/05/2026 Hearing on Motion to Strike Untimely Answer in Department 8C

requirement is mandatory, and failure to comply with it may result in matters being dropped without consideration.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to strike is DENIED in its entirety.

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.)