In the Matter of: City of Sacramento

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

TENTATIVE RULING

****NOTICE: EFFECTIVE APRIL 13, 2026, THIS DEPARTMENT WILL MOVE TO THE TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE COURTHOUSE LOCATED AT 500 G. ST. SACRAMENTO, CA. MOTIONS NOTICED FOR DEPARTMENT 28 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 8C OF THE NEW COURTHOUSE.*****

Respondent Yen Wang’s (“Respondent”) motion for reconsideration is ruled upon as follows.

Respondent seeks reconsideration of the Court’s February 11, 2026 Order (the “Ruling”) granting appointment of a receiver for four properties (the “Properties”) located at 3737 32nd Street, APN No. 020-0015-026-0000 (the “32nd Street Property”); 800 Del Verde Circle, #4, APN No. 225-0900- 001-0024 (the “Del Verde Circle Property”); 3117 Gardendale Road, APN No. 049-0193-001-0000 (the “Gardendale Road Property”); and 2650 Princeton Street, APN No. 266-0311-037- 0000 (the “Princeton Street Property”).

There are strict requirements for a motion for reconsideration. The motion for reconsideration must be supported by “new or different facts, circumstances or law.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 1008(b).) The party seeking reconsideration must base its motion “upon newly discovered facts, circumstances, or law.” (The New York Times Co. v. Superior Court (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV015769: IN THE MATTER OF: CITY OF SACRAMENTO 03/25/2026 Hearing on Motion for Reconsideration Order Appointing Receiver in Department 28

206, 208.) The moving party must also provide “a satisfactory explanation for the failure to make the showing at or before the time the challenged order was issued.” (Id.) “The information must be such that the moving party could not, with reasonable diligence, have discovered or produced it.” (Id. at 213.) The legislative intent was to restrict motions for reconsideration to circumstances where a party offers the court some fact or circumstance not previously considered and some valid reason for not offering it earlier. (Gilberd v. AC Transit (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 1494, 1500.)

By this motion, Respondent contends reconsideration and reversal are warranted under Code of Civil Procedure § 1008 because there are new facts and changed circumstances regarding progress made on three of the Properties (the 32nd Street Property, the Gardendale Road Property, and the Del Verde Circle Property), and because a third party has been added to title on the Gardendale Road Property. Respondent also contends that there were material errors of fact in the Ruling regarding (1) unlawful detainers filed for the Gardendale Road and Princeton Street Properties, (2) inaccuracies about the condition of the Gardendale Road Property, (3) inaccuracies about the condition of the Del Verde Circle Property, (4) inaccuracies about the condition of the 32nd Street Property, and (5) inaccuracies about the efforts made by Respondent as to the Princeton Property.

Lastly, Respondent contends that receivership is no longer necessary under current conditions.

In support of the motion for reconsideration, Respondent submitted Respondent’s declaration dated February 22, 2026. Respondent also later submitted the declaration of Elvis Hernandez, which was filed and served on March 11, 2026. Additionally, on March 11, 2026, Respondent submitted an amended notice of motion and motion for reconsideration along with an amended version of Respondent’s declaration. Thereafter, on March 12, 2026, Respondent submitted another version of Respondent’s declaration, labeled “AMEND 2.”

The Court will not consider the documents filed by Respondent on March 11, 2026, only ten Court days prior to the hearing. Service on March 11, 2026 did not provide Petitioner 16 court days' notice as required by Code of Civil Procedure section1005(b). Likewise, the Court will not consider the second amended declaration of Respondent submitted on March 12, 2026.

The Court also denies Respondent’s request to present oral testimony at the hearing on Respondent’s motion. The Court does not find that good cause exists under California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1306 to permit oral testimony.

The motion for reconsideration is opposed by both Petitioner City of Sacramento (the “City”) and by the court-appointed receiver, Housing Group Fund Corporation (the “Receiver”).

In opposition, the City submits the declaration of Doug Pierson, a Supervising Building Inspector for Housing and Dangerous Buildings for the City. He avers that he has reviewed the current records on the status of each of the Properties, and no additional work has been completed on

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV015769: IN THE MATTER OF: CITY OF SACRAMENTO 03/25/2026 Hearing on Motion for Reconsideration Order Appointing Receiver in Department 28

any of the Properties since the Court’s February 11, 2026 Ruling granting appointment of receivership. It is also his belief that no inspections on any current permit have been called for finalization. (Decl. Pierson, ¶ 4.) Pierson further avers that in his review of the Properties, no movement has been recorded on any of the Properties and each of the Properties are ripe for the Receiver to step in and clear all violations. (Decl. Pierson, ¶ 5.)

The Receiver argues that there are four reasons that the motion for reconsideration should be denied: (1) Wang’s “new facts” all predate the ruling, barring reconsideration under CCP § 1008; (2) Wang deliberately misled this court about the purpose and outcome of her unlawful detainer cases; (3) Wang deliberately misled this court about the purpose and outcome of her unlawful detainer cases; and (4) Wang’s own evidence confirms the court was right — and reveals ongoing illegal conduct.

32nd Street Property

As to the 32nd Street Property, Respondent argues, “All required work has been completed except installation of the heat pump and water heater, which was ordered by the contractor. These remaining items are already in progress. Smud was on from October, 2025.” (Motion, 2:20-23.) This argument does not present any new facts not argued and presented to the Court prior to the February 11, 2026 Ruling.

Respondent submits what he purports to be the declaration of Elvis Hernandez as Exhibit C1 to the declaration of Respondent. However, the purported declaration of Elvis Hernandez is signed by Respondent, and not by Hernandez. As a result, it does not further support Respondent’s motion for reconsideration. Moreover, even if the purported declaration of Herndaez was actually signed by Hernandez and taken as true, it does not show any new facts that would cause the Court to reconsider the February 11, 2026 Ruling, and would instead only serve to confirm “From approximately 2020 through the present, [Hernandez] experienced repeated inspections and enforcement actions from the City of Sacramento related to housing and dangerous building code violations” and that “[Hernandez] did not receive approval of any inspection during the time period referenced above.” (Decl.

Respondent, Ex. C-1 at ¶¶ 5, 8.)

Respondent already argued, prior to the February 11, 2026 Ruling that he had tried to repair the 32nd Street Property. Evidence of the same, even if it had been actually signed and properly submitted, would not constitute new facts to cause for the Court to reconsider the February 11, 2026 Ruling.

Gardendale Road Property

As to the Gardendale Property, Respondent argues that the roof has been fully replaced and dry rot repairs have commenced. Respondent asserts, “These remediation efforts are independently confirmed by third-party declarations. Respondent declaration of Yecsica Pompa

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV015769: IN THE MATTER OF: CITY OF SACRAMENTO 03/25/2026 Hearing on Motion for Reconsideration Order Appointing Receiver in Department 28

Martinez confirms that he personally performed work at 3117 Gardendale Road from approximately October 20, 2025 through February 11, 2026, including completion of roof replacement, debris removal, and replacement of subflooring. Please see attached Exhibit G-1.”

First, the Court notes that Respondent already argued that work had been performed on the Gardendale Road Property prior to the February 11, 2026 Ruling, and the Court has already considered this argument. While the veracity and credibility of the declaration of Martinez is questioned by the Receiver, the Court need not reach the veracity or admissibility of the declaration of Martinez because even if taken as true, she avers facts as to work she contends was performed “from approximately October 20, 2025 through February 11, 2026.” (See Decl.

Respondent, Ex G-1: Decl. of Martinez at ¶ 4.) Respondent fails to show why the statement of Martinez constitutes “new facts” nor why her declaration could not have been submitted prior to the February 11, 2026 hearing. Moreover, even if the Court would have considered her statement that certain work was completed or ongoing at the Gardendale Property, this would not have overcome the Court’s finding, based on substantial evidence submitted by the City, that the Property has been in disrepair for several years and that appointment of receiver for the Gardendale Property is needed.

Respondent also argues that third party Chang Wang has been added to the title of the Property, “demonstrating additional commitment and resources toward compliance.” (Motion, 3:19-20.) Respondent does not reference support for this purported new fact. Furthermore, this fact, even if assumed true, is not material to the Court’s determination that the appointment of a receiver is necessary for the Gardendale Road Property.

Del Verde Circle Property

Respondent claims, without reference to supporting evidence, “All repair work has been completed. Final inspection is pending and delayed due to access limitations.” (Motion, 3:14.) In the declaration of Respondent, in support of the motion to reconsider the decision as to the Del Verde Circle Property, Respondent does not reference any new facts that have occurred since the February 11, 2026 Ruling.

Princeton Street Property

Respondent points to no new facts which would cause the Court to reconsider its Ruling to appoint a receiver for the Princeton Property.

Unlawful Detainers

Respondent also argues that there was a “material error” in the Court’s February 11, 2026 Ruling in that the Court stated, “Respondent...claims to have instituted unlawful detainer cases... but provides no case numbers or evidence...” Respondent argues that Respondent did

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV015769: IN THE MATTER OF: CITY OF SACRAMENTO 03/25/2026 Hearing on Motion for Reconsideration Order Appointing Receiver in Department 28

provide the unlawful detainer case number for the Gardendale Road Property (UD case number 24UD02074) and for the Princeton Street Property (UD case number 24UD0282) in the opposition papers filed on July 18, 2025. Respondent argues that this factual misunderstanding materially affected the Court’s analysis concerning Respondent’s diligence in addressing access issues caused by unlawful occupants.

In opposition, the Receiver argues:

the case numbers Respondent supplies “expose — rather than cure — her misrepresentation. Chang Wang filed UD case No. 24UD02074 in April 2024 — more than four months before the City even initiated this action in August 2024. (See R1-R4 [24UD02074 Online Docket and Complaint].) It was not filed to clear the property for repairs: the complaint plainly seeks recovery of $18,500 in unpaid back rent from occupant Daniel Venegas. (R7.) Wang was attempting to collect rent — in cash, as is her practice — from an occupant of a property that had already been posted as a dangerous building in which entry was a misdemeanor. (Sacramento City Code, §§ 8.96.150, 8.96.155.) Wang’s representations to this Court that her UD filings were remedial and abatement-driven were, at minimum, materially misleading.

And then both that case and 24UD02082 — the Princeton Street action Wang touts on page 72 of her declaration — were dismissed within four months of filing, not because abatement was achieved, but because Wang, as a designated vexatious litigant, filed them without first obtaining the mandatory prefiling order from the presiding judge of the Sacramento Superior Court, as CCP § 391.7(a) expressly requires. (R13-R15 [Order Dismissing Complaint].) That Wang “claims $1,000 per month rent is owed” (YW Decl. p. 72) from people she simultaneously describes as “squatters” makes her story all the more incoherent. There was no diligent effort to abate anything. There was a failed effort to squeeze cash rent from an illegal occupancy. The entire factual predicate of Wang’s motion is built on this artifice.

(Receiver Opposition, 3:18 – 4:6.)

The Court acknowledges that in the multitude of filings that were submitted by Respondent in opposition to the original motion for appointment of receivership, the Court overlooked Respondent’s inclusion of the case numbers for the two unlawful detainer actions raised in the instant motion.

However, the Court concludes that whether or not Respondent initiated one unsuccessful

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV015769: IN THE MATTER OF: CITY OF SACRAMENTO 03/25/2026 Hearing on Motion for Reconsideration Order Appointing Receiver in Department 28

unlawful detainer action regarding the Princeton Street Property and one unsuccessful unlawful detainer action regarding the Gardendale Road Property is not material to the Court’s determination in finding the appointment of a receiver is required for these two properties.

Further, upon inspection of the filings in the two unlawful detainer actions, the Court concludes that though the two unlawful detainers were initiated, they do not support Respondent’s argument that Respondent made diligent attempts to remove squatters. If anything, the Court’s review of the unsuccessful unlawful detainers referenced by Respondent only strengthens the Court’s conclusion that the appointment of a receiver is necessary because the filings show that even as late as 2024, Respondent was attempting to collect rent from tenants living in unsafe living conditions.

Respondent has failed to meet Respondent’s burden to present new facts or law that warrant reconsideration.

Moreover, even if the Court were to consider the facts submitted here by Respondent, they would not support a different outcome. After review of Respondent’s motion for reconsideration, the Court is only more convinced that a receiver is required for the Properties.

Respondent’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED.

In addition, while the Court, in its discretion, considered the instant motion, Respondent is admonished for failure to serve the Receiver. Any future filings not properly served to both counsel for the City and counsel for the Receiver will be DROPPED.

The Court additionally admonishes Respondent for repeated failure to comply with California Rule of Court, Rule 3.1113: “All references to exhibits or declarations in supporting or opposing papers must reference the number or letter of the exhibit, the specific page, and, if applicable, the paragraph or line number.”

To the extent the Receiver requests additional orders from the Court regarding the Properties and Respondent’s affirmative obligations under the Court’s February 19, 2026 Appointment Order, those issues are not properly before the Court on this motion and the requests are therefore DENIED.

The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312, or further notice is required.