SIMPSON vs THE CROSSINGS APARTMENTS, AN UNKNOWN ENTITY, et al.

23CV013859: SIMPSON vs THE CROSSINGS APARTMENTS, AN UNKNOWN ENTITY, et al. 07/30/2025 Hearing on Motion to Deem Request for Admissions Admitted in Department 53

Tentative Ruling

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to “Public Notice – Civil Division – Wednesday Law and Motion Calendar” any oral arguments regarding this tentative ruling will be heard in Department 25, located at 720 9th Street, Sacramento, CA, the Hon. Julie G. Yap presiding. Should argument be requested by either party, the requesting party 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, request the hearing, and notify the opposing party of the location and time of hearing pursuant to Local Rule 1.06.

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.

The Court encourages parties to appear remotely for the hearing on the tentative ruling through the Court’s Zoom Application. But, any party wishing to appear in person may do so, provided that party notifies the Court by 4:00 the Court day before the hearing. The parties may join the Zoom session for hearing on the tentative ruling by audio and/or video through the following link: https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept25 SIP Address: 16113421868@sip.zoomgov.com (833) 568-8864 ID: 16113421868 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.

23CV013859: SIMPSON vs THE CROSSINGS APARTMENTS, AN UNKNOWN ENTITY, et al. 07/30/2025 Hearing on Motion to Deem Request for Admissions Admitted in Department 53

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:

Defendant/Cross-Defendant Committed Elite Response Team (“Defendant”) motion for an order deeming Plaintiff Dominique Simpson (“Plaintiff”) to have admitted the truth of the matters specified in Requests for Admission, Set One is DENIED.

This motion was previously scheduled for hearing on April 9, 2025. Plaintiff Dominique Simpson’s (“Plaintiff”) Counsel filed an opposition on grounds Plaintiff is now deceased. The Court continued the hearing and authorized supplemental briefing on the effect of Plaintiff’s death.

In its supplemental briefing, Defendant acknowledges that the Court should not exercise authority over the deceased Plaintiff before a substitution is made and concedes that “compelling discovery responses from a deceased Plaintiff is premature since no personal representative has been substituted for the decedent[.]” (Supplemental Brief, p. 2:24-25.) However, Defendant argues it is prejudiced by the inability to obtain discovery and that rather than denying the motion, the Court should instead continue the hearing until a personal representative or successor has substituted as plaintiff.

“As a general proposition, judgment cannot be entered for or against a decedent, nor against the personal representative of the decedent’s estate, until the representative has been made a party by substitution, and a judgment entered against the decedent prior to substitution of a personal representative or successor-in-interest is subject to general attack.” (Grappo v. McMills (2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 996, 1004-1005 citing Sacks v. FSR Brokerage, Inc. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 950, 956-957.) “However, this general proposition has not been applied blindly, but rather has acted to prevent prejudice to the parties because of lack of notice, lack of proper representation, or some other disadvantage.” (Sacks v.

FSR Brokerage, Inc., supra, 7 Cal.App.4th at p. 957.) Thus, where a party dies after all evidence has been introduced and a case is ready for decision, the California Supreme Court has affirmed the entry of a judgment nunc pro tunc to the date the evidence was introduced. (See Leavitt v. Gibson (1935) 3 Cal.2d 90.) Similarly, when, unbeknownst to the Court and attorneys, a party dies after trial has commenced but before the

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV013859: SIMPSON vs THE CROSSINGS APARTMENTS, AN UNKNOWN ENTITY, et al. 07/30/2025 Hearing on Motion to Deem Request for Admissions Admitted in Department 53

submission of all evidence, the California Supreme Court has held that judgment is not when entry of the judgment is delayed until after substitution of the party’s representative or successor. (Collison v. Thomas (1961) 55 Cal.2d 490, 495-496.)

In contrast, the Court may not enter a judgment nunc pro tunc where a key issue remains undecided until after substitution. (Sacks v. FSR Brokerage, Inc. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 950, 958 interpreting Boyd v. Lancaster (1939) 32 Cal.App.2d 574.) Courts also lack power to rule on motions that were served on counsel for a party after the death of the party and before substitution of a representative. (Judson v. Love (1868) 35 Cal. 463.)

Here, it has been represented to the Court that Plaintiff died before the opposition to this motion was due and Plaintiff’s personal representative or successor has not substituted into this action. Indeed, based on the representations made at the last hearing, it appears that Plaintiff died prior to service of the discovery at issue in this motion and thus, before this motion was filed. Thus, any order issued against Plaintiff would be void or voidable and would not bind Plaintiff’s personal representative/successor.

Continuing the hearing would also be futile, as Plaintiff’s personal representative/successor was not served with the subject discovery or the original notice of motion. Thus, even if the Court were to delay in issuing a ruling until after the Plaintiff’s personal representative/successor substitutes into the action, any order would not be binding due to defective notice. (See Judson v. Love, supra, 35 Cal. 463.)

Defendant argues that it will be prejudice if the motion is denied because Defendant is being forced to defend a case without the ability to discover verified evidence. However, any prejudice to Defendant was caused by Plaintiff’s death, not by the Court’s denial of this motion. If Plaintiff’s personal representative or successor substitutes into the action, Defendant will be free to seek the discovery sought from the new plaintiff at that time.

The Court declines to rule on Defendant’s request for an order to show cause as to why the action should not be dismissed as the relief was not requested in the original notice. In authorizing supplemental briefing, the Court did not authorize Defendant to seek additional relief not sought in the original motion.

The motion is denied. The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312 or further notice is required.