Soraya Maria Rigor vs. Estate of Leo Charles Curry

34-2020-00285047-CU-MC-GDS: Soraya Maria Rigor vs. Estate of Leo Charles Curry 01/23/2025 Hearing on Motion for Reconsideration in Department 53

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 53/54 Zoom Link is https://saccourt-cagov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept53.54 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 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 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

34-2020-00285047-CU-MC-GDS: Soraya Maria Rigor vs. Estate of Leo Charles Curry 01/23/2025 Hearing on Motion for Reconsideration in Department 53

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

TENTATIVE RULING: Self-represented Plaintiff Soraya Rigor’s unopposed “motion for reconsideration: a notice of lis pendens” is ruled upon as follows.

On September 13, 2024, Plaintiff filed a 46 page document titled “notice of motion and motion for reconsideration: a notice of lis pendens.” On September 23, 2024, Plaintiff filed a 107 page document titled “amended notice of motion and amended motion for reconsideration: a notice of lis pendens.” While there is a proof of service accompanying the document filed on September 13, 2024, there is no proof of service in the Court’s file showing service of the “amended” motion filed on September 24, 2024. Defective service deprives the court of jurisdiction. (Lee v. Placer Title Co. (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 503, 509.) The motion is therefore dropped for defective service.

In any event, even if the papers had been properly served, the motion for reconsideration would be denied. “When an application for an order has been made to a judge, or to a court, and refused in whole or in part, or granted, or granted conditionally, or on terms, any party affected by the order may, within 10 days after service upon the party of written notice of entry of the order and based upon new or different facts, circumstances, or law, make application to the same judge or court that made the order, to reconsider the matter and modify, amend, or revoke the prior order. The party making the application shall state by affidavit what application was made before, when and to what judge, what order or decisions were made, and what new or different facts, circumstances, or law are claimed to be shown.” (CCP § 1008(a).)

Nowhere in Plaintiff’s papers does she identify what order of this Court she seeks to have reconsidered. A motion for reconsideration must also be supported by “new or different facts, circumstances or law.” (CCP § 1008(b).) Even assuming Plaintiff identified an order for which she seeks reconsideration, Plaintiff also failed to identify any new or different facts, circumstances or law. A court “acts in excess of jurisdiction when it grants a motion to reconsider that is not based upon ‘new or different facts, circumstances, or law.’” (Gilberd v. AC Transit (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 1494, 1500.) Therefore, even if service of this “motion” had been proper, the motion for reconsideration would still be denied in any event.

As best the Court can tell, Plaintiff appears to again seek to obtain a ruling on her quiet title claim. This Court has previously informed Plaintiff that a motion seeking to resolve factual disputes and obtain a final judgment quieting title is not appropriate in the Law and Motion Department 53. Law and Motion proceedings do not include trials on the merits. (May 8, 2024 Minute Order.) A trial date, once all parties have appeared or

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2020-00285047-CU-MC-GDS: Soraya Maria Rigor vs. Estate of Leo Charles Curry 01/23/2025 Hearing on Motion for Reconsideration in Department 53

been dismissed, is obtained through the Case Management Department (Department 38), and/or any special setting of trial must be obtained from the Presiding Judge (Department 47). In this case, it does not yet appear that all parties have been properly served, appeared, and/or have been dismissed.

In summary, the motion is dropped for defective service. In the alternative, even if service was proper, the motion is denied.

The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312 or further notice is required.