AUSSIEKER vs CMS, INC, et al.

25CV000864: AUSSIEKER vs CMS, INC, et al. 05/18/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Responses to Case Questionnaire 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

25CV000864: AUSSIEKER vs CMS, INC, et al. 05/18/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Responses to Case Questionnaire in Department 8D

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.

TENATTIVE RULING

On April 20, 2026, with respect to the pending motion of Plaintiff in pro per Mark Aussieker (“Plaintiff”) to compel Defendant Homes Panorama LLC (“Homes Panorama”) responses to Judicial Council Form DISC-010 (Case Questionnaire—For Limited Civil Cases, the Court made the following orders:

(1) Plaintiff is directed to file and serve notice, under Code of Civil Procedure section 286, to the opposing party regarding the counsel’s ineligibility to practice law. The notice should include documents that provide the basis for Plaintiff’s understanding regarding Counsel’s ineligibility to practice law. Plaintiff shall file and serve such notice, and provide proof of service regarding same, no later than May 4, 2026.

(2) Service shall be effected on Defendants’ counsel of record and both named Defendants.

(3) This matter is continued to May 18, 2026 at 1:30 p.m. in Department 8D.

(4) The Court also concurrently issues an Order to Show Cause regarding Counsel’s failure to comply with the Court’s March 9, 2026 Orders.

The Court’s register of actions does not show that Plaintiff has complied with Court orders regarding requisite notice. Accordingly, the pending motion is DROPPED.

The Court sets forth its prior tentative ruling, which was affirmed on April 20, 2026, below:

This matter came before the court on March 9, 2026, on motion of Plaintiff in pro per Mark Aussieker (“Plaintiff”) to compel Defendant Homes Panorama LLC (“Homes Panorama”) responses to Judicial Council Form DISC-010 (Case Questionnaire—For

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV000864: AUSSIEKER vs CMS, INC, et al. 05/18/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Responses to Case Questionnaire in Department 8D

Limited Civil Cases).

Following the hearing on March 9, 2026, the Court continued this matter to April 20, 2026, and issued the following in its Minute Order:

[T]he Court asked Plaintiff whether he had informed counsel of record for Defendant regarding attendance at the hearing, as required by Local Rule 1.06. Plaintiff represented to the Court that he understood that Defendant’s counsel was no longer eligible to practice law in California. Defendant’s counsel that has made appearances (special or otherwise) in this case on behalf of Defendant remains Counsel of Record. There is no withdrawal or substitution on the Court’s Register of Actions. There has been nothing filed with the Court to put it on official notice— without supporting documents—of Defendant’s counsel’s purported inability to practice law.

Defendant’s counsel is ordered to provide a copy of this Order on Defendants within five (5) days of this order and submit a declaration or proof of service regarding such notice/service with the Court within ten (10) days of this Order. If Defendants’ counsel is no longer authorized to practice law in California, counsel should immediately take appropriate steps to remove itself as Counsel of Record in this case and provide appropriate notice to the Court and Plaintiff regarding the proper contact information for Defendant for purposes of service. The Court notes that Defendant, as a corporate entity, cannot represent itself or appear on its own behalf without licensed Counsel. If Defendant’s counsel is authorized to practice law in California, Counsel shall file and serve a declaration regarding same within ten (10) days of this Order.

(3/9/26 Order.)

Despite the Court’s order, there have been no subsequent filings by Defendant’s counsel or on behalf of Defendants since the March 9, 2026, hearing.

Plaintiff’s representation regarding Defendant’s counsel’s ineligibility to practice law presents circumstances that require the Court to ensure proper notice and an

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV000864: AUSSIEKER vs CMS, INC, et al. 05/18/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Responses to Case Questionnaire in Department 8D

opportunity to respond by all Parties, including those represented by the purportedly ineligible counsel. As the Court of Appeal recently explained in Prato v. Gioia (2025) 112 Cal.App.5th 651, 656:

Inactive status renders an attorney ineligible to practice law. . . . And a litigant abandoned by counsel is not the same as a self-represented litigant, who might be expected to appear on her own.

Specifically, the Prato Court held that Code of Civil Procedure section 286 applies when an attorney has been removed, suspended, or is otherwise ineligible to practice law, such as by being placed on inactive status by the State Bar. (Id. at pp. 656, 661-662.) Section 286 provides:

When an attorney dies, or is removed or suspended, or ceases to act as such, a party to an action, for whom he was acting as attorney, must, before any further proceedings are had against him, be required by the adverse party, by written notice, to appoint another attorney, or to appear in person.

The Prato Court further recognized that the California Supreme Court has stated “that it would be prejudicial and injurious to a party if her attorney is rendered unable to practice and the opposing party fails to provide the notice required under section 286. If the unrepresented party then fails to appear at a proceeding in which an adverse action is taken against her, the failure to give timely notice would represent a serious flaw in the proceedings.” (Prato, supra, 112 Cal.App.5th at p. 662 [emphasis added] [citing Nicol v. San Francisco (1900) 130 Cal. 288, 288–289].) “Indeed, when a party is aware that his or her opponent is without representation, that party must give notice under section 286.” (Ibid. [citing McMunn v. Lehrke (1915) 29 Cal.App. 298, 307-308].)

Accordingly, the Prato Court directed, as follows:

[A]ny party who becomes aware that an opponent’s attorney has been made involuntarily inactive and ineligible to practice law by the State Bar must promptly give notice to his or her opponent under section 286. We also hold that trial courts, when notified of an attorney’s involuntarily inactive status, are encouraged to order counsel to issue section 286 notice to the affected party before further proceedings may be taken

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV000864: AUSSIEKER vs CMS, INC, et al. 05/18/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Responses to Case Questionnaire in Department 8D

against him or her.

(Prato, supra, 112 Cal.App.5th at p. 656.)

Based on the foregoing, the Court makes the following orders: (1) Plaintiff is directed to file and serve notice, under Code of Civil Procedure section 286, to the opposing party regarding the counsel’s ineligibility to practice law. The notice should include documents that provide the basis for Plaintiff’s understanding regarding Counsel’s ineligibility to practice law. Plaintiff shall file and serve such notice, and provide proof of service regarding same, no later than May 4, 2026. (2) Service shall be effected on Defendants’ counsel of record and both named Defendants. (3) This matter is continued to May 18, 2026 at 1:30 p.m. in Department 8D. (4) The Court also concurrently issues an Order to Show Cause regarding Counsel’s failure to comply with the Court’s March 9, 2026 Orders.