Kailie Armstrong vs. Lotus Investment Partners LLC

34-2021-00300268-CU-PO-GDS: Kailie Armstrong vs. Lotus Investment Partners LLC 12/15/2025 Hearing on Motion - Other to File Evidence Under Seal in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment in Department 28

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 28 Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept28 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 160 3906 2174. 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

34-2021-00300268-CU-PO-GDS: Kailie Armstrong vs. Lotus Investment Partners LLC 12/15/2025 Hearing on Motion - Other to File Evidence Under Seal in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment in Department 28

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.

This matter was continued from October 28, 2025 after oral argument. The Court directed Defendant Torath Sahota’s (“Defendant”) counsel to serve plaintiff Kallie Armstrong (“Plaintiff”), in pro per, with a copy of the motion because her counsel Andrew Collup has essentially abandoned her case. The Court also directed Plaintiff to file and opposition on or before December 5, 2025, and for Defendant to file a reply, if any, before December 9, 2025. No opposition or reply has been filed.

Defendant’s motion to seal is DROPPED for defective service. Although the Court directed Defendant to serve Plaintiff with a copy of the motion, no proof of service is in the Court’s records showing such service. Defective service deprives the court of jurisdiction to act. (Lee v. Placer Title Co. (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 503, 509.)

Moving counsel’s notice of motion does not provide notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system, as required by Local Rule 1.06. Moving counsel is directed to contact Opposing counsels and advise them of Local Rule 1.06 and the Court’s tentative ruling procedure and the manner to request a hearing. If moving counsel is unable to contact Opposing counsels prior to hearing, moving counsel is ordered to appear at the hearing.