JACOBS vs AMEEN, et al.

The court may require the person to provide reasonably available evidence, including financial information, to support his or her eligibility for the fee waiver, but shall not require submission of information that is not related to the criteria for eligibility and application requirements set forth in Sections 68632 and 68633. The court shall not conduct a hearing pursuant to this subdivision more often than once every six months.

25CV022511: JACOBS vs AMEEN, et al. 06/16/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other Regarding Fee-Waiver Eligibility Review and Rule 3.54 in Camera Review in Department 16C

(Gov’t Code §68636(b).)

CRC Rule 3.54 states “[a]ny person seeking access to an application or financial information provided to the court by an applicant must make the request by noticed motion, supported by a declaration showing good cause regarding why the confidential information should be released.”

Plaintiff believes that Zahid may have omitted material financial information from his Form FW- 001, or that later-obtained information shows that Zahid is no longer eligible for a fee waiver. To support his motion, Plaintiff provides a Quitclaim Deed in which Zahid was conveyed property located at 4721-4723 Large Oak Court, Sacramento, CA 95841. The Quitclaim Deed was recorded on October 27, 2020. (RJN, ¶ 2, Adams Decl., Ex. B.) Plaintiff also provides a Grant Deed in which the Eleni Galitsopoulos and Yanni Galitsopoulos, Successor Co-Trustees of the George K.

Giobres Decedent's Trust dated August 4, 2007, created under The Giobres Family Trust of 1984, dated March 19, 1984 granted Naz Suhail Lutfi Ezzat property located at 5546- 5548 Brinef Drive, Sacramento, CA 95841. The Grant Deed was recorded on April 1, 2025. (RJN, ¶ 3, Adams Decl., Ex. C.) Zahid’s answer dated November 13, 2025 provides his address as 5546 Brinef Drive, Sacramento, CA 95841. (RJN, ¶ 5, Adams Decl., Ex. E.)

Based on the above, Plaintiff explains that:

Those records do not, standing alone, prove that Defendant Mustafa Zahid transferred Brinef, presently owns Brinef, or committed fraud. They are offered for the narrower point that, when read together with the Large Oak deed and Defendant’s later use of the Brinef address in his verified answer, they raise concrete questions regarding residence, household resources, related-party transactions, and whether any material financial information was omitted from or later became inconsistent with the fee-waiver showing.

(Motion, 2:25-3:2.)

Plaintiff adds that:

The verified answer confirms that Defendant later used 5546 Brinef Drive as his address. The recorded quitclaim deed raises a concrete question whether Defendant may hold, or may have held, a record ownership interest in 4721-4723 Large Oak Court under a fuller version of the same name. The Brinef conveyance documents, while not proof of ownership by Defendant, link the Brinef address and the Large Oak property through the borrower’s stated residence.

(Motion, 6:4-7.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV022511: JACOBS vs AMEEN, et al. 06/16/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other Regarding Fee-Waiver Eligibility Review and Rule 3.54 in Camera Review in Department 16C

Plaintiff has not persuaded the Court that the Grant Deeds require that the Court conduct an eligibility fee waiver review for Zahid. Notably, Section 68632 provides that “[p]ermission to proceed without paying court fees and costs because of an applicant's financial condition shall be granted initially to all of the following person . . . (a) An applicant who is receiving public benefits under one or more of the following programs: . . . (7) Medi-Cal (Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 14000) of Part 3 of Division 9 of the Welfare and Institutions Code).” (Gov’t Code §68632(a)(7).) Zahid obtained a fee waiver based on his receipt of Medi-Cal benefits. There is no evidence before the Court that Zahid no longer receives Medi-Cal benefits.

The Court also finds that Plaintiff fails to show good cause pursuant to CRC Rule 3.54.

Accordingly, the motion is DENIED.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc. §1019.5; CRC Rule 3.1312.)

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 16C Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16030877014 To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID 16030877014. NO COURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV022511: JACOBS vs AMEEN, et al. 06/16/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other Regarding Fee-Waiver Eligibility Review and Rule 3.54 in Camera Review in Department 16C

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

[1] Unless otherwise indicated, all further statutory references are to the Government Code.