MIDLAND STATES BANK, AN ILLINOIS STATE-CHARTERED BANK vs SAVENSEAL.COM LTD., A HAWAII CORPORATION ALSO KNOWN AS SAVENSEAL.COM LTD AND AS SHIELD N SEAL, et al.

25CV007388: MIDLAND STATES BANK, AN ILLINOIS STATE-CHARTERED BANK vs SAVENSEAL.COM LTD., A HAWAII CORPORATION ALSO KNOWN AS SAVENSEAL.COM LTD AND AS SHIELD N SEAL, et al. 08/13/2026 Hearing on Motion for Reconsideration or Carification Re: Default Judgment Rejection Notice 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 Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615 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-reporter-services-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.

25CV007388: MIDLAND STATES BANK, AN ILLINOIS STATE-CHARTERED BANK vs SAVENSEAL.COM LTD., A HAWAII CORPORATION ALSO KNOWN AS SAVENSEAL.COM LTD AND AS SHIELD N SEAL, et al. 08/13/2026 Hearing on Motion for Reconsideration or Carification Re: Default Judgment Rejection Notice 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.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Midland States Bank’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion for Reconsideration or Clarification re Default Judgment Rejection Notice is ruled upon as follows.

As an initial matter, the Court notes that Plaintiff’s motion is improper under Code of Civil Procedure section 1008, subdivision (a), which governs motions for reconsideration. Section 1008(a) permits a party affected by an “order,” within a certain time frame, to apply to the same judge or court who made that order, to reconsider the matter and modify, amend, or revoke the prior order. Section 1008(a) applies narrowly to court “orders” and does not extend more generally to other notices issued by the Court. (Compare, e.g., Civ.

Proc. Code, § 473, subd. (b) [applying to “a judgment, dismissal, order, or other proceeding taken against the party”].) Furthermore, in the narrow instances where a motion under Section 1008(a) is permitted, such motion must be supported by an affidavit setting forth, inter alia, what new or different facts, circumstances, or law support reconsideration and demonstrating diligence as to why such matters were not raised in the initial motion.

Here, Plaintiff has not shown that a Default Rejection Notice (“Rejection Notice”) is the proper subject of a Section 1008(a) motion. Moreover, even assuming for purposes of argument that a Rejection Notice could be construed as an “order” and is the potential subject of a motion for reconsideration, Plaintiff has not set forth any “new or different facts, circumstances, or law,” which would permit reconsideration of the July 2, 2026 Rejection Notice in this case. Indeed, Plaintiff does not argue that there are “new facts, circumstances, or law” that warrant reconsideration, but rather, appears to rely upon the same evidence it submitted with its original default judgment package. Thus, even if the Court’s Rejection Notice could be construed to be an “order,” Plaintiff’s recourse would

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV007388: MIDLAND STATES BANK, AN ILLINOIS STATE-CHARTERED BANK vs SAVENSEAL.COM LTD., A HAWAII CORPORATION ALSO KNOWN AS SAVENSEAL.COM LTD AND AS SHIELD N SEAL, et al. 08/13/2026 Hearing on Motion for Reconsideration or Carification Re: Default Judgment Rejection Notice in Department 16D

be to seek appellate review, not pursue a motion for reconsideration. These defects independently warrant denial of Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration.

While the Court finds that Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is improperly made and is subject to denial, the Court, while denying this motion, shall in its discretion provide the following comments and clarification as to the Rejection Notice.

First, Plaintiff’s Exhibit 7 does not support the amount of damages alleged in the Complaint. The Complaint alleges damages totaling $29,976.85, and Exhibit 7 supports damages of only $28,456.20. The remainder of the $31,748.74 “total” listed in Exhibit 7 comprises $3,292.54 in accrued interest. All prejudgment interest should be listed separately from damages on the proposed judgment, and the damages line on the proposed judgment should be reduced to the amount supported by Exhibit 7, i.e., $28,456.20.

Second, Plaintiff’s computation of attorney’s fees (based on Local Rule 2.14) is premised on damages totaling $31,748.74 – the “total” listed in Exhibit 7. However, as noted above, that amount includes $3,292.54 in accrued interest, and the Court does not award attorney’s fees under Local Rule 2.14 based on principal plus interest. The Court awards attorney’s fees under Local Rule 2.14 based on principal only. Notably, Local Rule 2.14 does not prohibit any party from seeking any amount of attorney’s fees beyond that presumptively permitted “under normal circumstances” as set forth therein. Rather, pursuant to subdivision (H), a party may move for attorney’s fees in excess of that otherwise provided for in Local Rule 2.14.

Therefore, Plaintiff’s present motion for reconsideration is DENIED, but with these additional comments.

Plaintiff may resubmit an application for default judgment in the normal manner consistent with the clarifications made in this ruling, i.e., reduce damages to $28,456.20 as supported by Exhibit 7 and recompute attorney’s fees. Again, Plaintiff may also provide points and authorities as part of its default judgment package to the extent it disagrees with the Court’s earlier Rejection Notice. Also, nothing in this order or the Court’s Rejection Notice prohibits Plaintiff from seeking additional fees beyond those

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV007388: MIDLAND STATES BANK, AN ILLINOIS STATE-CHARTERED BANK vs SAVENSEAL.COM LTD., A HAWAII CORPORATION ALSO KNOWN AS SAVENSEAL.COM LTD AND AS SHIELD N SEAL, et al. 08/13/2026 Hearing on Motion for Reconsideration or Carification Re: Default Judgment Rejection Notice in Department 16D

provided for in Local Rule 2.14 via noticed motion.

Finally, the Court notes that Plaintiff makes several comments pertaining to the Court’s processing time for default judgment packages as a basis for filing this motion. Such argument is no basis for filing an improper motion pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1008. Rather, to the extent Plaintiff believes it should be entitled to an expedited review of a resubmitted default judgment package, Plaintiff was allowed to and may still apply ex parte for an order providing for expedited consideration of such package. The Court makes no determination at this time whether expedited consideration would be granted.

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.)