SANDFORD vs TERRA NOVA COUNSELING DDP, et al.

24CV007808: SANDFORD vs TERRA NOVA COUNSELING DDP, et al. 09/04/2025 Hearing on Motion - Other for Evidence 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

24CV007808: SANDFORD vs TERRA NOVA COUNSELING DDP, et al. 09/04/2025 Hearing on Motion - Other for Evidence in Department 53

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

TENTATIVE RULING Plaintiff in pro per James Sandford’s “Motion to Add the Evidence that the Court Already Has” is DROPPED as follows.

On August 14, 2025, Plaintiff filed this motion with an accompanying memorandum of points and authorities and a declaration. On August 27, 2025, Plaintiff filed a supplemental declaration. None of these filings were timely made as required under Code of Civil Procedure section 1005(b). As this Court has referenced during prior hearings, section 1005(b) provides, “[u]nless otherwise ordered or specifically provided by law, all moving and supporting papers shall be served and filed at least 16 court days before the hearing.” Further, the 16-day service requirement is extended depending on the method of service used by the movant. Even if proof of sufficient hand service had been shown here, any filings made and served on August 14, 2025 are untimely for a September 4, 2025 hearing date. As a result, Plaintiff’s hearing is DROPPED from calendar.

While the Court need not proceed further, the Court also finds no proof of service of the moving papers at all despite CRC Rule 3.1300(c)’s requirement that proof of service be filed at least five court days prior to the scheduled hearing date. The filed proof of service was thus due no later than August 27, 2025. Defective service of notice deprives the Court of jurisdiction to consider this matter. (See, e.g., Lee v. Placer Title Co. (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 503, 509-511.) Thus, even if the moving papers had been timely filed (which they were not), Plaintiff’s motion would still be dropped due to lack of jurisdiction caused by Plaintiff’s failure to establish proper proof of service.

Again, while the Court need not proceed further, it notes that even if Plaintiff had timely filed and served its motion and supplied proper proof of service, there is no cognizable motion under the Code of Civil Procedure or otherwise, such as Plaintiff’s self-titled, “Motion to Add the Evidence that the Court Already Has.” Given that there is no such motion that can be made under law, even if all procedural defects did not exist, the attempted motion by plaintiff would be denied in any event.

Lastly, even if no jurisdictional defects existed here, to the extent Plaintiff’s attempted motion was intended to be construed as a request for judicial notice pursuant to Evid. Code 452(d) and 453, no request for judicial notice can be made untethered to specified pretrial proceedings (e.g., motions or oppositions to motions based upon evidence for which judicial notice is requested) or trial. As with evidence generally, the matter to be judicially noticed must be relevant to the issues raised in a motion/opposition or at trial. (See Mangini v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1057, 1063.) There is no cognizable motion made here to which a request for judicial notice might relate nor is this matter in trial. Thus, the attempted “Motion to Add the

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV007808: SANDFORD vs TERRA NOVA COUNSELING DDP, et al. 09/04/2025 Hearing on Motion - Other for Evidence in Department 53

Evidence,” to the extent it was intended to be a request for judicial notice, would be denied in any event. The Court need not proceed further.

Disposition

For the reasons explained above, Plaintiff’s present motion is DROPPED.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc. §1019.5; CRC Rule 3.1312.)