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

23CV013859: SIMPSON vs THE CROSSINGS APARTMENTS, AN UNKNOWN ENTITY, et al. 07/13/2026 Hearing on Motion of Summary Judgment/Adjudication in Department 8D

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that effective April 13, 2026, this department has moved to the Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye courthouse located at 500 G Street in Sacramento, CA 95814. All hearings noticed for Department 25 will be heard in Department 8D of the new courthouse. Parties who wish to contest the tentative ruling below must: (1) request a hearing by calling the Department 8D Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-7719 no later than 4:00 p.m. on the Court day before the scheduled CMC, and (2) advise opposing counsel of the request.

If a hearing is not requested by 4:00 p.m. on the Court day before the scheduled CMC, the tentative ruling shall become 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. If a hearing is requested, the Court assumes that all parties will appear remotely via Zoom unless the Court orders inperson attendance.

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/j/16113421868 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. 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

23CV013859: SIMPSON vs THE CROSSINGS APARTMENTS, AN UNKNOWN ENTITY, et al. 07/13/2026 Hearing on Motion of Summary Judgment/Adjudication in Department 8D

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant’s Notice of Motion does not provide notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system, as required by Local Rule 1.06(D). Defendant’s counsel is directed to contact opposing counsel forthwith to advise counsel of Local Rule 1.06 and the Court’s tentative ruling procedure. If Defendant’s counsel is unable to contact opposing counsel prior to the hearing, Defendant’s counsel shall be available at the hearing, in person or remotely (telephonically or by video conference via Zoom as stated in the introductory notice to today’s tentative rulings), in the event opposing counsel appears without following the procedures set forth in Local Rule 1.06(B).

Defendant Committed Elite Response Team’s (“Defendant”) Motion for Summary Judgment of Plaintiff Dominique Simpson’s (“Plaintiff”) Complaint is DROPPED for defective service.

Plaintiff Dominique Simpson passed away on April 7, 2024. (See Defendant’s Notice to Court of Suggestion of Death filed on March 9, 2026.) To date, no successor in interest has been appointed. According to the proof of service filed with the instant motion, the moving papers were purportedly served on the deceased Plaintiff by mail directed to her counsel of record.[1]

Upon the death of the client, counsel has no authority to act on the behalf of their client. (Judson v. Love (1868) 35 Cal. 463, 467 [“The power of attorney necessarily ceased with the death of the principal. No further proceedings could be had without bringing in the representatives”]; see Dieter v. Kiser (1910) 158 Cal. 259, 262 [observing court holdings the death of a client renders service of notice on the attorney ineffectual]; see also Herring v. Peterson (1981) 116 Cal.App.3d 608, 612 [“Power and authority of an attorney dies with the client”]; Swartfager v. Wells (1942) 53 Cal.App.2d 522, 528 [“The authority of an attorney necessarily ceases with the death of the client, for no one can act for a dead man. After the death of the client, his attorney therefore becomes a stranger to the proceedings.”].)

Therefore, service upon Plaintiff’s counsel of record is insufficient. At the time the motion was filed, Plaintiff’s counsel did not have authority on behalf of the deceased Plaintiff.

Defective service deprives the court of jurisdiction to act. (Lee v. Placer Title Co. (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 503, 509.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV013859: SIMPSON vs THE CROSSINGS APARTMENTS, AN UNKNOWN ENTITY, et al. 07/13/2026 Hearing on Motion of Summary Judgment/Adjudication in Department 8D

Further, even if service were proper, the Court has serious concerns regarding the entry of summary judgment against a decedent party for whom no personal representative has been named. “Unless the decedent's personal representative is made a party, a judgment should not be rendered for or against a decedent, nor for or against the representative.” (Weil and Brown (2026) Cal. Prac. Guide Civ. Pro. Before Trial, Ch. 2G, § 2:503; see also Sacks v. FSR Brokerage, Inc. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 950, 957 [“As a general proposition, it is true, . . . that under these provisions judgment cannot be rendered for or against a decedent, nor for or against a personal representations of a decedent’s estate until the representative has been made a party by substitution.”].)

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

[1] The Court notes that all parties were aware of Plaintiff’s death before Defendant filed

its motion for summary judgment. (See June 23, 2026 Minute Order, p. 1.)