CHICAGO TITLE COMPANY, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION vs JEFFREY PANG & COMPANY, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, et al.

24CV009122: CHICAGO TITLE COMPANY, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION vs JEFFREY PANG & COMPANY, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, et al. 05/07/2026 Hearing on Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Default and Default Judgment (CCP 473.5) in Department 16D

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 16D Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16146506749 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 4650 6749. 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.

24CV009122: CHICAGO TITLE COMPANY, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION vs JEFFREY PANG & COMPANY, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, et al. 05/07/2026 Hearing on Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Default and Default Judgment (CCP 473.5) in Department 16D

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

*** NOTICE: EFFECTIVE APRIL 13, 2026, THIS DEPARTMENT HAS MOVED TO THE TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE COURTHOUSE LOCATED AT 500 G. ST. SACRAMENTO, CA. ALL MOTIONS NOTICED FOR DEPARTMENT 53 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 16D OF THE NEW COURTHOUSE. ALL PAPERS FOR THIS DEPARTMENT MUST BE FILED AT THIS NEW LOCATION AND WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED AT THE HALL OF JUSTICE. ALL HEARINGS WILL TAKE PLACE AT THIS NEW LOCATION. PARTIES MAY CONTINUE TO APPEAR REMOTELY IN DEPARTMENT 16D UNLESS SPECIFICALLY ORDERED OTHERWISE. ***

TENTATIVE RULING: Cross-Defendant Bruce Mintzer’s (“Mintzer”) motion to set aside entry of default is denied.

By way of the instant motion, Mintzer moves to set aside entry of default entered against him on Cross-Complainant Jeffrey Pang & Company, Inc.’s (“JPC”) crosscomplaint on December 31, 2025. According to Mintzer, the Cross-Complaint was improperly served and the default was entered as the result of surprise and/or excusable neglect.

Mintzer first argues that the Cross-Complaint was improperly served because JPC’s counsel sent it to his counsel by email. Mintzer asserts that his counsel had not agreed to electronic service. (Murphy Decl. ¶ 4.) He also argues that the proof of service filed on December 31, 2025 was defective because it did not include the date the Cross- Complaint was sent. Neither of these arguments provides a basis to set aside the default. CCP § 428.60 provides that where, as here, a party has appeared in the action, “the cross-complaint shall be served upon his attorney, or upon the party if he has appeared without an attorney, in the manner provided for service of summons or in the manner provided by Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 1010) of Title 14 of Part 2 of this code.” (CCP § 428.60(2).) “A person represented by counsel, who has appeared in an action or proceeding, shall accept electronic service of a notice or document that may be served by mail, express mail, overnight delivery, or facsimile transmission.” (CCP § 1010.6(b)(2) [emphasis added].)

Here, Mintzer is represented by

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV009122: CHICAGO TITLE COMPANY, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION vs JEFFREY PANG & COMPANY, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, et al. 05/07/2026 Hearing on Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Default and Default Judgment (CCP 473.5) in Department 16D

counsel and had appeared in the action. Thus, service by email was appropriate. In addition, Mintzer’s counsel acknowledged receipt of the Cross-Complaint on November 18, 2025 and stated that a “responsive pleading will follow within 30 days.” (Harnett Decl. ¶¶ 6-7, Exh. B.) Thus even if CCP § 1010.6(b)(2) did not apply, Mintzer’s counsel accepted service of the Cross-Complaint. Additionally, the proof of service filed with the Court on December 31, 2025, makes clear that the Cross-Complaint was served by email on November 17, 2025. Mintzer failed to demonstrate that service of the Cross- Complaint was improper or the that proof of service was defective.

Mintzer next contends that the failure to file an answer was the result of surprise or excusable neglect. According to his moving memorandum, Mintzer seeks relief under the discretionary provision of CCP § 473(b), specifically citing its terms. (MPA at 3:12- 15.) Pursuant to the discretionary provision of CCP § 473(b), “[t]he court may, upon any terms as may be just, relieve a party or the party’s legal representative from a judgment, dismissal, order, or other proceeding taken against the party through the party’s mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.” (CCP § 473(b).)

An attorney’s mistake is excusable when it is the type of mistake that might have been made by “a reasonably prudent person under the same or similar circumstances.” (Garcia v. Hejmadi (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 674, 682.) By contrast, “[c]onduct falling below the professional standard of care, such as failure to timely object or properly advance an argument, is therefore not excusable” under the discretionary provisions of CCP § 473. (Id.) Mintzer’s counsel’s declaration fails to set forth any mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect.

Instead, Mintzer’s counsel acknowledged receipt of the Cross- Complaint on November 17, 2025. (Murphy Decl. ¶ 4.) Mintzer’s counsel then details learning of deposition subpoenas on November 19, 2025 and two other discovery requests that required immediate attention.” (Id. ¶¶ 6, 7.) Mintzer’s counsel then declares that the answer to the Cross-Complaint was submitted to the Court on January 5, 2026, and that it was rejected because default had been entered. (Id. ¶¶ 8, 9.) But there is no explanation as to why Mintzer did not timely file an answer.

Minzter’s counsel then discusses Plaintiff Chicago Title Company’s and JPC’s stipulation to set aside JPC’s default in June 2025. (Id. ¶¶ 11-14.) However, there is no discussion of why this has any relevance to Mintzer’s failure to timely file an answer. Lastly, Mintzer’s counsel declares that JPC’s counsel was aware that Mintzer intended to respond to the Cross-Complaint. (Id. ¶ 15.) Yet, Mintzer’s counsel entirely fails to explain why the answer was not timely filed. Under these circumstances, the Court cannot find that Mintzer has shown that the default was taken as the result of mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect such that relief could be granted pursuant to the discretionary provisions of CCP § 473(b).

As a result, the motion is denied.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV009122: CHICAGO TITLE COMPANY, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION vs JEFFREY PANG & COMPANY, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, et al. 05/07/2026 Hearing on Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Default and Default Judgment (CCP 473.5) in Department 16D

The Court would note that Mintzer did not seek relief pursuant to the mandatory provisions of CCP § 473(b). “[A] party is entitled to mandatory relief under section 473(b), even when the attorney error is inexcusable, so long as the attorney affidavit of fault shows the error was of the attorney rather than the client.” (Jimenez v. Chavez (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 50, 57-58.) Again, however, Mintzer only sought relief pursuant to the discretionary provision based on excusable neglect. This ruling does not prevent Mintzer from seeking relief pursuant to the mandatory provisions of CCP § 473(b).

The Court further notes that JCP offered to stipulate to set aside the default after this motion was filed provided Mintzer reimbursed JCP $480.92 for the fees and costs of obtaining the default. Mintzer declined that offer. (Hartnett Decl. ¶ 11, Exh. C.) Nothing precludes the parties from revisiting that proposal.

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