Rag Singh v. Sanjay Kaushish

98AS01711: RAG SINGH VS SANJAY KAUSHISH 08/26/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other to Renew Judgment in Department 8D

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 8D Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16113421868 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 1342 1868. 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 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 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

98AS01711: RAG SINGH VS SANJAY KAUSHISH 08/26/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other to Renew Judgment in Department 8D

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.

****NOTICE: EFFECTIVE APRIL 13, 2026, THIS DEPARTMENT WILL MOVE TO THE TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE COURTHOUSE LOCATED AT 500 G. ST. SACRAMENTO, CA. MOTIONS NOTICED FOR DEPARTMENT 25 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 8D OF THE NEW COURTHOUSE. ALL HEARINGS WILL TAKE PLACE AT THIS NEW LOCATION*****

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Rag Singh’s (“Plaintiff”) application for renewal of judgment is DENIED. Plaintiff in this action is proceeding in pro per.

On April 6, 2001, Judgment was entered in this case. After Plaintiff applied to renew the judgment, Renewal of the Judgment was entered on June 11, 2010. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 683.120(b), “the filing of the application [for renewal of the judgment with the court] renews the judgment in the amount determined under Section 683.150 and extends the period of enforceability of the judgment as renewed for a period of 10 years from the date the application is filed.” Accordingly, the renewed judgment was then enforceable through June 11, 2020.

Plaintiff has attempted to bring a motion to “allow renewal of judgment late” on three prior occasions, beginning on March 17, 2025, all of which were dropped for defective service. (See Minute Orders dated Apr. 15, 2025, Aug. 11, 2025, Jan. 11, 2026.) The Court also previously noted that, “although not essential to [those rulings], the . . . motion does not appear to be supported by competent evidence sufficient to establish any or all of the assertions therein or otherwise identify any legal authority which entitles the moving party to any or all of the relief requested.” (See Minute Orders dated Apr. 15, 2025, Aug 11, 2025.)

Plaintiff filed the instant “Request to Allow Renewal of Judgment Late” on March 13, 2026. In essence, Plaintiff argues that his period of incarceration and lack of legal representation prevented him from timely applying to renew judgment. He requests that the deadline to file an application to renew judgment be tolled for legal disability.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

98AS01711: RAG SINGH VS SANJAY KAUSHISH 08/26/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other to Renew Judgment in Department 8D

“Except as otherwise provided by statute, upon the expiration of 10 years after the date of entry of a monetary judgment . . . [¶] . . . [t]he judgment may not be enforced[,]” and “[a]ll enforcement procedures pursuant to the judgment . . . shall cease.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 683.020, subds. (a), (b).) Code of Civil Procedure sections 683.110, et seq., provide for the renewal of judgments. “In the case of a lump-sum money judgment or a judgment for possession of sale of property, the application for renewal of judgment may be filed at any time before the expiration of the 10-year period of enforceability provided by Section 683.020 or, if the judgment is a renewed judgment, at any time before the expiration of the 10-year period of enforceability of the renewed judgment provided by Section 683.120.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 683.130, subd. (a).)

Code of Civil Procedure section 386.020’s 10-year time period “commences on the date of entry and is not tolled for any reason.” (Fidelity Creditor Service, Inc. v. Browne (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 195, 201; see 16 Cal.Law Revision Com.Rep. (1982) p. 1207 [“the 10-year period provided by Section 683.020 is not extended because enforcement of the judgment has been stayed or enjoined by court order or by operation of law. Nor is the 10-year period tolled for any reason.”]; see also Pratali v. Gates (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 632, 637.)

Moreover, a renewal of a judgment is “purely ministerial” and “does not create a new judgment or modify the present judgment.” (Jonathan Neil & Associates, Inc. v. Jones (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 1481, 1487, 1489.) Indeed, “[r]enewal merely extends the enforceability of the judgment.” (Id. at p. 1489.) If renewal extends the enforceability of a judgment, failure to timely renew renders the judgment unenforceable. (OCM Principal Opportunities Fund, L.P. v. CIBC World Markets Corp. (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 185, 194, quoting Cal.

Law Revision Com. com, 17 West's Ann.Code Civ. Proc. (1987 ed.) foll. § 683.110, p. 76 [The Enforcement of Judgment Law “does not require the judgment creditor to demonstrate diligence in enforcing the judgment, but if renewal is not accomplished within 10 years after entry of the judgment, the judgment becomes unenforceable.”].)

Plaintiff has provided no legal authority to support that tolling based on an alleged period of incarceration may apply to extend the renewal period provided for in Code of Civil Procedure sections 683.110, et seq. Rather, the authority cited by Plaintiff relates to the potential application of federal law regarding a bankruptcy stay in relation to a renewal of judgment. (See Rubin v. Ross (2021) 65 Cal.App.5th 153, 168-169; see In re. Spirtos (9th Cir. 2000) 221 F.3d 1079, 1080-1081.) Moreover, even if such tolling applied, Plaintiff has failed to provide competent evidence to establish the application of any such tolling to this matter. There is no evidence regarding when Plaintiff was incarcerated, or for what period, during the renewal period.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

98AS01711: RAG SINGH VS SANJAY KAUSHISH 08/26/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other to Renew Judgment in Department 8D

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s application is denied.

Finally, to the extent Plaintiff’s motion also requests the Court to appoint counsel to represent him in this matter, the Court does not find that the facts before it support appointment of counsel. (Cf. Payne v. Superior Court (1976) 17 Cal.3d 908, 926-927.)

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.)