MCELHANEY vs U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

23CV009343: MCELHANEY vs U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION 08/27/2026 Hearing on Motion of Summary Judgment/Adjudication 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-cagov.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-servicestranscripts. 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.

23CV009343: MCELHANEY vs U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION 08/27/2026 Hearing on Motion of Summary Judgment/Adjudication 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.

*** 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. ***

TENTATIVE RULING: Defendants Selene Finance, L.P., et al.’s motion for summary judgment is continued to November 19, 2026 at 1:30 p.m. in this department.

This action arises from a dispute concerning real property owned by self-represented Plaintiff Roddie McElhaney. Plaintiff alleges that in 2013, Ocwen Loan Servicing attempted to foreclose the property based on fabricated documents. Plaintiff alleges Defendants and Prestige Trustee are now attempting to foreclose on the property again using the same fabricated documents. Plaintiff asserts causes of action for lack of standing to foreclose, statute of limitations, violation of Civil Code § 2924, and quiet title. Defendants now move for summary judgment.

On August 14, 2026, this Court denied Plaintiff’s ex parte application to continue the instant motion pursuant to CCP § 437c(h). The Court made clear the denial was premised on the fact that the request to continue was made by way of an ex parte motion. If a request to continue pursuant to CCP § 437c(h) is made by ex parte motion, it must be made “at any time on or before the date the opposition response to the motion is due.” (CCP § 437c(h).) As noted by the Court in the August 14, 2026, minute order, Plaintiff’s opposition was due on August 7, 2026, and thus the ex parte application was untimely.

The Court, however, made clear that the first sentence of CCP § 437c(h) was inapplicable to Plaintiff’s ex parte application because that sentence only applies to continuance requests made in opposition to the motion for summary judgment. Thus, the Court’s August 14, 2026 minute order did not address, much less rule out the possibility that Plaintiff may nevertheless request a continuance by way of a filed opposition to Defendants’ motion. Likewise, the Court did not address the underlying merits of Plaintiff’s request to continue.

On August 20, 2026, Plaintiff filed an opposition which requests a continuance of this hearing pursuant to CCP § 437c(h). Plaintiff’s request appears to be supported by its earlier filed “Declaration of Roddie McElhaney ISO Application for Continuance,” which

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV009343: MCELHANEY vs U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION 08/27/2026 Hearing on Motion of Summary Judgment/Adjudication in Department 16D

was filed on August 13, 2026 and submitted at the same time as Plaintiff’s ex parte application. At the outset, it is undisputed that Plaintiff’s opposition papers are untimely under CCP § 437c(b)(2) such that the Court may in its discretion decide whether or not to consider them.. Given the potentially dispositive nature of this motion, the Court exercises its discretion and will consider Plaintiff’s opposition papers. The Court notes that Defendants argue in reply that Plaintiff’s request is untimely and that the Court has already rejected the exact same request.

As discussed in the preceding paragraph, the Court’s denial of Plaintiff’s ex parte application for a continuance was premised on the second sentence of the statute which specifically states that ex parte applications must be made at or before the time for opposition is due. As to whether the Court may consider a request for continuance made in an untimely opposition to a motion for summary judgment, such remains subject to the Court’s discretion the same as any untimely filed opposition. Thus, because the Court is considering the opposition, which consists solely of a continuance request, the Court will consider the continuance request on its merits.

A request for a continuance must be accompanied by affidavits showing that facts justifying an opposition may exist but cannot then be presented. (CCP § 437c(h).) The affiant need not show evidence does exist, only that it may. This “leaves little room for doubt that such continuances are to be liberally granted.” (Frazee v. Seely (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 627, 634 [quoting Bahl v. Bank of America (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 389, 395.) CCP § 437c(h) “mandates a continuance of a summary judgment hearing upon a good faith showing by affidavit that a continuance is needed to obtain facts essential to justify opposition to the motion.” (Nazar v.

Rodeffer (1986) 184 Cal.App.3d 546, 556.) If a party requesting a continuance submits an affidavit demonstrating that facts essential to justify opposition exist, the court’s discretion to deny a continuance because that party was not diligent in discovering the facts earlier is “strictly limited.” (Bahl, supra, 89 Cal.App.4th at 398 [“the issue of discovery diligence is not mentioned in section 437c(h), which raises obvious doubts about its relevance.”]) However, there is a split of authority regarding whether a party seeking a request for a continuance must demonstrate diligence. (Braganza v.

Albertson’s, LLC (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 144, 155-156.) Further, even where the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 437c(h) have not been met, a continuance is within the Court’s discretion so long as good cause is shown. (Lerma v. County of Orange (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 709, 716.)

Here, Plaintiff seeks a 120-day continuance on the basis that there is outstanding discovery. Specifically, she states that she has a motion to compel set to be heard on September 24, 2026 which relates to documents necessary to oppose Defendants’ motion. Plaintiff also indicates that her files related to this case were placed in storage in June 2026 and her current homelessness has impaired her ability to review those documents. Plaintiff states that she needs additional time to retrieve the materials from storage so that she can prepare her opposition. While Defendants contend in reply that

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV009343: MCELHANEY vs U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION 08/27/2026 Hearing on Motion of Summary Judgment/Adjudication in Department 16D

they have responded to all discovery and produced documents, the Court nevertheless finds that a continuance is appropriate pursuant to CCP § 437c(h). Further, even if diligence were a requirement under CCP § 437c(h), the Court nevertheless has good cause to continue the motion. Based upon the attestations in Plaintiff’s declaration as they pertaining to discovery, the Court finds good cause to continue this hearing so as to allow Plaintiff’s motion to compel to be heard and for Plaintiff to retrieve documents from storage.

Further, if the Court did not continue the matter Defendants’ motion for summary judgment would remain unopposed given the lack of evidence submitted by Plaintiff in opposition and potentially may be granted as a result. The policy of deciding cases on the merits counsels against that result. Further, no trial date has been set and thus there is no trial date that will be impacted by the continuance of this motion.

However, although the Court shall continue hearing on Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, the Court stresses that it is incumbent upon Plaintiff to utilize such additional time to properly seek and obtain the documents and any other discovery it attests are essential to opposing this motion. If Plaintiff fails to promptly seek or obtain such materials and/or fails to comply with the Code of Civil Procedure or California Rules of Court so as to remain without such discovery by the time its opposition is due, Plaintiff’s own failures will not, without more, constitute good cause to continue hearing on Defendant’s motion yet again.

The Court will continue the instant motion to November 19, 2026, at 1:30 p.m. in this department. Any supplemental opposition and reply are to be filed pursuant to the timelines of CCP § 437c(b) based on the continued hearing date. Plaintiff is reminded that opposition papers to a motion or summary judgment are due 20 days before the hearing pursuant to CCP § 437c(b)(2) and not nine court days as Plaintiff mistakenly believes.

Only if the continued November 19, 2026, hearing date is not feasible for the parties, shall counsel and Plaintiff meet and confer to select a later date in the same date range. Counsel shall inform the clerk of any later date no later than 4:00 p.m. on August 26, 2026.

The notice of motion does not provide notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system as required by Local Rule 1.06(D). Defendants’ counsel is ordered to notify Plaintiff immediately of the tentative ruling system and to be available at the hearing in person, via Zoom or by telephone, in the event Plaintiff appears without following the procedures set forth in Local Rule 1.06(B).

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