Motion to Dismiss
34-2020-00287359-CU-PO-GDS: Ronald L. Curd vs. Marriot International, Inc. 08/04/2026 Hearing on Motion to Dismiss 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 Department 16D Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-3056 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 on the Court Reporter Services webpage available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://saccourt.ca.gov/general-information/court-reporter-services-transcripts.
Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://saccourt.ca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/227/639084034465370000. 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. Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk.
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?”
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 Reporters 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 STREET IN SACRAMENTO, CA. ALL MOTIONS NOTICED FOR DEPARTMENT 53 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT
34-2020-00287359-CU-PO-GDS: Ronald L. Curd vs. Marriot International, Inc. 08/04/2026 Hearing on Motion to Dismiss in Department 16D
16D OF THE NEW COURTHOUSE. ALL HEARINGS WILL TAKE PLACE AT THIS NEW LOCATION. PARTIES MAY CONTINUE TO APPEAR REMOTELY IN DEPARTMENT 16D UNLESS SPECIFICALLY ORDERED OTHERWISE. ***
TENTATIVE RULING
Defendants motion to dismiss plaintiff in pro per Curds complaint is ruled upon as follows.
The notice of motion does not comply with Code of Civil Procedure §1010 or CRC Rule 3.1110(a), requiring the moving party to state the grounds for the motion presented.
Factual Background
Plaintiff Curd commenced this personal injury action on 10/19/2020, having his attorney file a complaint for damages based on premises liability and general negligence theories of liability. In September 2024, the Court set this matter for trial on 8/5/2025. In May 2025, plaintiff Curd began representing himself in this action and shortly thereafter, the 8/5/2025 trial date was vacated. In September 2025, the Court reset this matter for trial on 9/1/2026.
On 5/20/2026, defendants filed the present motion to dismiss in which they argue that plaintiff Curd failed to bring this action to trial within five-year statutory period and that the current trial date of 9/1/2026 is beyond the expiration of the five-year statutory period without defendants having agreed to extend the five-year deadline. Attached to the moving papers is a proof of service attesting to service on plaintiff Curd solely by electronic mail on 5/20/2026.
The Courts Register of Actions does not currently reflect any opposition having been filed by plaintiff to the present motion to dismiss.
Discussion
While Code of Civil Procedure §1010.6(b) generally authorizes service by electronic means on a party who is represented by counsel, §1010.6(c) specifies different rules for electronic service on parties who are not represented by counsel. More specifically, §1010.6(c) currently provides in pertinent part:
(1) This subdivision applies to electronic service by consent of an unrepresented person in a civil action. (2) An unrepresented party may consent to receive electronic service. (3) Express consent to electronic service may be given by either of the following: (i) Serving a notice on all parties and filing the notice with the court.
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
34-2020-00287359-CU-PO-GDS: Ronald L. Curd vs. Marriot International, Inc. 08/04/2026 Hearing on Motion to Dismiss in Department 16D
(ii) Manifesting affirmative consent through electronic means with the court or the courts electronic filing service provider, and concurrently providing the partys electronic address with that consent for the purpose of receiving electronic service. The act of electronic filing shall not be construed as express consent. (4) A person who has provided express consent to accept service electronically may withdraw consent at any time by completing and filing with the court the appropriate Judicial Council form.
(Underline added for emphasis.)
As noted above, plaintiff Curd has not been represented by counsel since May 2025 and thus, without a showing that plaintiff Curd had prior thereto expressly consented to such electronic service in at least one of the two means identified in §1010.6(c)(3), defendants service of the present motion on plaintiff Curd solely by electronic mail on 5/20/2026 was neither proper nor valid.
Notably, the Courts own Register of Actions does not currently reflect plaintiff Curds filing of any express consent to electronic service in conformity with the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure §1010.6(c)(3)(i) or (ii). Moreover, defendants own proof of service attached to the moving papers does not attest to receipt from plaintiff Curt of any express consent to electronic service within the meaning of §1010.6(c)(3)(i) or (ii). Instead, the proof of service attached to the moving papers merely asserts that electronic mail was utilized because defendants counsels firm continues working via remote and is therefore only using electronic mail for service of documents. However, this attestation clearly fails to satisfy the requirements for express consent to electronic service under §1010.6(c)(3).
In light of the foregoing, this Court concludes that defendants service of the moving papers on plaintiff Curd by electronic means was not proper or valid.
Additionally, since it is now too late for defendants to timely file in conformity with CRC Rule 3.1300(c) [requiring proof of service of moving papers be filed at least five court days prior to scheduled hearing] proof of any potentially valid service of the moving papers on plaintiff Curd, the present motion to dismiss shall be DROPPED from calendar due to defective service of notice which deprives the Court of jurisdiction to consider the merits of this motion. (See, e.g., Lee v. Placer Title Co. (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 503, 509-511.)
Moving defendants to provide notice of this ruling and file proof of service of same within five (5) court days.
This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required.
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
34-2020-00287359-CU-PO-GDS: Ronald L. Curd vs. Marriot International, Inc. 08/04/2026 Hearing on Motion to Dismiss in Department 16D
(Code Civ. Proc. §1019.5; CRC Rule 3.1312.)