Order to Show Cause Re: Why Creditors’ Application for Order for Sale of Dwelling Should Not Be Granted
34-2007-00881161-CL-CL-GDS: Hudson & Keyse, LLC vs. Bikram Jam Singh 05/20/2026 Order to Show Cause Re: Why Creditors' Application for Order for Sale of Dwelling Should Not Be Granted (5892 Da Vinci Way, Sacramento, CA 95835) in Department 8D
Tentative Ruling
NOTICE: 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 8D, located at 500 G 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 Courts 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/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 Courts Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver
34-2007-00881161-CL-CL-GDS: Hudson & Keyse, LLC vs. Bikram Jam Singh 05/20/2026 Order to Show Cause Re: Why Creditors' Application for Order for Sale of Dwelling Should Not Be Granted (5892 Da Vinci Way, Sacramento, CA 95835) in Department 8D
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 Reporters Office and an official reporter will be provided
TENTATIVE RULING
Mandatory Appearance Required.
Creditors Notice of Motion does not provide notice of the Courts tentative ruling system, as required by Local Rule 1.06(D). Creditors counsel is directed to contact Judgment Debtor forthwith to advise counsel of Local Rule 1.06 and the Courts tentative ruling procedure. If Creditors counsel is unable to contact Judgment Debtor prior to the hearing, Creditors 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 todays tentative rulings), in the event Judgment Debtor appears without following the procedures set forth in Local Rule 1.06(B).
Assignee of record and judgment creditor Collect Access, LLC (Creditor) Application for Order for Sale of Dwelling located at 5892 Da Vinci Way in Sacramento is continued for further hearing as set forth below.
On March 25, 2026 the Court ruled on Creditors September 23, 2026 application for sale of dwelling. The Court ordered the issuance of an Order to Show Cause (OSC) pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 704.770. (March 25, 2026 Minute Order, p. 3.) The OSC ordered Judgment Debtor Bikram Jam Singh (Judgment Debtor) to appear on May 20, 2026 to show cause, if any, why Creditors application for order for sale of dwelling should not be granted. (Id., p. 2.)
On April 28, 2026, Judgment Debtor filed an opposition, arguing that he is not the individual against whom Creditor obtained default judgment and that the instant proceeding is therefore improper as it is based entirely upon this mistaken identity. Judgment Debtor seeks for the Court to: (1) sua sponte strike the affidavit of identity and order which linked him to the judgment; (2) declare that Bikram Jam Singh and Bikramjit Singh are not the same individual, and that the judgment is against Bikram Jam Singh, not Bikramjit Singh; and (3) deny the instant motion, as the property at issue
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
34-2007-00881161-CL-CL-GDS: Hudson & Keyse, LLC vs. Bikram Jam Singh 05/20/2026 Order to Show Cause Re: Why Creditors' Application for Order for Sale of Dwelling Should Not Be Granted (5892 Da Vinci Way, Sacramento, CA 95835) in Department 8D
is owned by Bikramjit Singh, who is not a defendant in the underlying action. In support, Judgment Debtor presents his declaration, attesting that he has never gone by the name Bikram Jam Singh (Singh Decl., ¶¶ 2, 3), that he was never served with any documents in relation to the underlying matter (Id., at ¶¶ 8, 9), that the judgment debt is not his (Id., at ¶ 9), and that he has never resided or received mail at the address at which documents pertaining to the underlying case were served (Id., at ¶ 12).
The order to show cause hearing under section 704.770 serves a specific and limited purpose in the enforcement of judgments against dwellings. At the hearing on the Order to Show Cause Re Sale of Dwelling, the Court will determine whether the dwelling is exempt as a homestead, and if so, to determine the amount of the exemption and the fair market value of the property. (Fidelity National Title Ins. Co. v. Schroeder (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 834, 844.)
Mistaken identity challenges the fundamental validity of the judgment itself rather than the exemption status of property. California law provides specific procedures for addressing mistaken identity claims in judgment enforcement contexts, but these remedies are separate from the homestead sale hearing.
The Court will therefore CONTINUE the instant matter to permit Judgment Debtor to file a motion to set aside judgment (or other procedural vehicle to address the relief sought), which may seek to challenging the October 3, 2023 Affidavit of Identity and the Courts order on this filing or other orders/judgment of the Court.
The Parties are ordered to appear to discuss timing for the continuance of the instant order to show cause.