VELOCITY INVESTMENTS LLC vs NUNEZ

25CV012610: VELOCITY INVESTMENTS LLC vs NUNEZ 10/14/2025 Hearing on Motion to Dismiss 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

25CV012610: VELOCITY INVESTMENTS LLC vs NUNEZ 10/14/2025 Hearing on Motion to Dismiss in Department 53

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

TENTATIVE RULING: Self-represented Defendant Daisy Nunez’s unopposed motion to dismiss is denied.

In this consumer collection action, Plaintiff Velocity Investments, LLC, filed a complaint on May 27, 2025, for breach of contract alleging that Defendant failed to make payments pursuant to a consumer loan. Plaintiff seeks damages in the amount of $1,024.99.

Defendant’s two page motion asserts that the complaint should be dismissed for failure to validate the debt, lack of standing, failure to state a claim, “improper evidence”, “due process violation”, and a lack of jurisdiction.

Here, the motion must be denied. The motion does not analyze any of the various grounds upon which Defendant seeks to dismiss the complaint, and most of the points are not supported by any citation to legal authority. More importantly, the brief motion provides no citation to any legal authority which would support the ultimate relief sought, specifically, dismissal of the complaint. Defendant has failed to demonstrate that she is entitled to a dismissal of Plaintiff’s complaint with prejudice.

The Court notes that Defendant’s declaration states that she sent a response to Plaintiff’s demand letter and requested a validation of the debt pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692g but did not receive a response. (Nunez Decl. ¶¶ 2, 3.) She also states that she was not properly served because the first two attempts at service on May 30, and June 5, 2025 were at the wrong address. (Id. ¶¶ 4, 5.) Neither of these assertions provide a basis to dismiss this action. Further, the Court notes that the proof of service filed with the Court by Plaintiff on June 20, 2025, shows that Defendant was personally served by a registered process served on June 12, 2025, at the very address listed on her motion.

Defendant does not dispute this service and thus any argument based on improper service must be rejected. And in any event, while defective service of the summons and complaint (even if proved) may provide grounds to quash service, it would not provide grounds for dismissal of the action.

In short, Defendant has not presented any legal authority which would permit the Court to dismiss this action with prejudice based on the points listed in Defendant’s motion.

The motion is denied.

The Court will further note that although Defendant is self-represented in this action in propria persona, and likely has little to no legal training, self-represented litigants are not

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV012610: VELOCITY INVESTMENTS LLC vs NUNEZ 10/14/2025 Hearing on Motion to Dismiss in Department 53

entitled to special treatment. (Nelson v. Gaunt (1981) 125 Cal. App.3d 623, 638-639.) Self-represented litigants are required to follow the same procedural rules that govern civil litigation. (McComber v. Wells (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 512, 522-523.) A selfrepresented party is to be treated like any other party and is entitled to the same, but no greater, consideration than other litigants and attorneys. (Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1246-1247; Barton v. New United Motor Manufacturing, Inc. (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 1200, 1210).

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