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 08/03/2026 Order to Show Cause Re: Why Creditors' Application for Order for Sale of Dwelling Should Not Be Granted (5636 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
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?”
34-2007-00881161-CL-CL-GDS: Hudson & Keyse, LLC vs. Bikram Jam Singh 08/03/2026 Order to Show Cause Re: Why Creditors' Application for Order for Sale of Dwelling Should Not Be Granted (5636 Da Vinci Way, Sacramento, CA 95835) in Department 8D
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. 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 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 5636 Da Vinci Way in Sacramento is ruled upon as follows.
Creditor filed an application for order for sale of dwelling on September 23, 2025. At the hearing on February 18, 2026, the Court continued the matter to March 25, 2026 based on the representations of Judgment Debtor Bikram Jam Singh (Judgment Debtor), to permit Judgment Debtor to file an opposition. (February 18, 2026 Minute Order, p. 2.)
On March 25, 2026, receiving no opposition by Judgment Debtor, 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, pp. 3-4.) The Court directed Creditor to
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
34-2007-00881161-CL-CL-GDS: Hudson & Keyse, LLC vs. Bikram Jam Singh 08/03/2026 Order to Show Cause Re: Why Creditors' Application for Order for Sale of Dwelling Should Not Be Granted (5636 Da Vinci Way, Sacramento, CA 95835) in Department 8D
serve the OSC and a Notice of Hearing and Creditors application for order for sale of dwelling on Judgment Debtor pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 704.770, as well as on any occupants at the Property at issue. (Id., pp. 2-3.) The OSC ordered 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.) The OSC also specifically allowed for opposition by Judgment Debtor to be filed and served pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1005(b). (Ibid.)
On April 28, 2026, Judgment Debtor filed an opposition, arguing that this is a case of mistaken identity, and requesting the affidavit of identity ruled on by the Court on October 2, 2023 be stricken, that the Court declare that he is not the judgment debtor in this matter, and deny Plaintiffs application for order for sale of the dwelling. The Courts minute order for the May 20, 2026 hearing acknowledged the opposition, but noted that:
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.)
(May 20, 2026 Minute Order, p. 2.)
The Court continued the matter to todays date, 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. (Ibid.) The Courts order further states:
If [Judgment Debtor] seeks to file and serve a motion to vacate judgment, Defendant may file with a hearing date of August 3, 2026, at 1:30 p.m. [Judgment Debtor] shall submit a copy of this Order with the moving papers when filing with that date. All moving papers, opposition papers, and reply papers shall be filed and served in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure section 1005 based on that hearing date.
If no motion to vacate is filed, the Court notes that it is unlikely that this matter will
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
34-2007-00881161-CL-CL-GDS: Hudson & Keyse, LLC vs. Bikram Jam Singh 08/03/2026 Order to Show Cause Re: Why Creditors' Application for Order for Sale of Dwelling Should Not Be Granted (5636 Da Vinci Way, Sacramento, CA 95835) in Department 8D
be continued again and that the matters will be considered under the standards and considerations consistent with the Orders to Show Cause.
(May 20, 2026 Minute Order, pp. 2-3.)
While Judgment Debtor has reserved the hearing date of September 23, 2026, no moving papers have been filed, nor has Judgment Debtor made any ex parte application to move this date, or filing any moving papers with the hearing date for August 3, 2026. Accordingly, the Court must rule on the record before it.
Code of Civil Procedure section 704.770(b) provides:
(b) Not later than 30 days before the time set for hearing, the judgment creditor shall do both of the following:
(1) Serve on the judgment debtor a copy of the order to show cause, a copy of the application of the judgment creditor, and a copy of the notice of the hearing in the form prescribed by the Judicial Council. Service shall be made personally or by mail.
(2) Personally serve a copy of each document listed in paragraph (1) on an occupant of the dwelling or, if there is no occupant present at the time service is attempted, post a copy of each document in a conspicuous place at the dwelling.
On April 15, 2026, Creditor provided proof of service by mail to Judgment Debtor for the notice of OSC re: order for sale of dwelling, the Courts March 25, 2026 Minute Order, and notice of hearing on right to homestead exemption. (April 15, 2026 Proof of Service.) On April 30, 2026, Creditor also provided proof of service of posting of the same documents at the Property at issue. (May 6, 2026 Proof of Service.) Therefore, service appears to have been accomplished pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 704.770.
Finding no written response to the OSC issued on March 25, 2026, and no motion pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 473 having been filed pursuant to the Courts May 20, 2026 Minute Order, the Court shall order the sale of the property at issue unless Judgment Debtor appears at hearing to show sufficient cause, if any, why this Court should not issue an order for sale of Judgment Debtors interest in the subject
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
34-2007-00881161-CL-CL-GDS: Hudson & Keyse, LLC vs. Bikram Jam Singh 08/03/2026 Order to Show Cause Re: Why Creditors' Application for Order for Sale of Dwelling Should Not Be Granted (5636 Da Vinci Way, Sacramento, CA 95835) in Department 8D
dwelling to satisfy in whole or part the outstanding judgment against him.
Unless Judgment Debtor appears at hearing to demonstrate sufficient cause why the Court should not issue the order for sale of Judgment Debtors interest in the subject dwelling, the Court shall sign the proposed order.