NORDSTROM, INC. vs EMER

25CV023298: NORDSTROM, INC. vs EMER 08/05/2026 Hearing on Motion for Reconsideration in Department 8C

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that any oral arguments regarding this tentative ruling will be heard at 1:30 p.m. in Department 8C in the Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye Courthouse at 500 G Street, Sacramento, CA, the Hon. Richard C. Miadich presiding.

Any party who wishes to contest the tentative ruling below must:

(1) request a hearing by calling the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line for Department 8C at (916) 874-8380, by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the noticed hearing date, and leave a voicemail 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 they have notified the opposing party of their intention to appear; and

(2) advise the opposing party of the location and time of hearing pursuant to Local Rule 1.06.

If a hearing is not requested by 4:00 p.m. on the Court day before the noticed hearing date, the tentative ruling will become the final order of the Court.

If a hearing is requested, the Court prefers in-person attendance by the parties. However, parties may appear by Zoom unless the Court specifically orders in-person attendance. Parties choosing to appear by Zoom are reminded, however, that a Zoom appearance is still a formal appearance before the Court. Parties appearing via Zoom should do so from a quiet location, free from undue distractions, and wear attire suitable for an in-person court appearance.

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/16039062174

SIP Address:

16039062174@sip.zoomgov.com

(833) 568-8864

25CV023298: NORDSTROM, INC. vs EMER 08/05/2026 Hearing on Motion for Reconsideration in Department 8C

ID: 16039062174

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.

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 Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

TENTATIVE RULING

***NOTICE: EFFECTIVE APRIL 13, 2026, THIS DEPARTMENT HAS MOVED TO THE TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE COURTHOUSE LOCATED AT 500 G STREET SACRAMENTO, CA. ALL MOTIONS NOTICED FOR DEPARTMENT 28 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 8C 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***

Defendant in pro per Alex Emer’s (“Defendant”) motion for reconsideration is DENIED.

The notice of motion does not provide notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system, as required by Local Rule 1.06. Defendant is directed to contact opposing counsel and advise of Local Rule 1.06 and the Court’s tentative ruling procedure and the manner to request a hearing. If Defendant is unable to contact opposing counsel prior to the hearing, Defendant is ordered to appear at the hearing by Zoom or in person.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV023298: NORDSTROM, INC. vs EMER 08/05/2026 Hearing on Motion for Reconsideration in Department 8C

On January 26, 2026, the Court, the Honorable Alan Hardcastle, presiding, adjudicated four discovery motions filed by Plaintiff Nordstrom, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) through a single comprehensive ruling that addressed all four motions on the merits. (See Minute Order on Motion to Compel Defendant to Respond to Requests for Production, dated 01/26/2026 (hereafter, “Order”).) In opposition to the motions, Defendant contended that he had not been properly served with the subject discovery because he had not consented to receive electronic service. In discussing the factual background on this issue, the Court stated:

On October 7, 2025, Plaintiff filed a proof of service stating that Defendant was personally served with the Summons and Complaint on October 3, 2025. In the interim, on October 6, 2025, Defendant filed a motion to quash service of summons, which is scheduled for hearing on March 16, 2026. Since October, Defendant has also filed several other documents. This includes a filing that is titled, “Defendant’s Interrogatories, Requests for Production, and Requests for Admission (Set One).” Within the document, Defendant declares, “Due to disability-related limitations and restricted access to postal services, Defendant requests that all service and communication be conducted via email pursuant to Cal.

Rules of Court, rule 1.100, and consistent with Gov. Code § 11135 (prohibiting disability-based discrimination in any program receiving state funds).” (Defendant’s Interrogatories, Requests for Production, and Requests for Admission (Set One), filed 10/14/2025, p. 8:14-18, emphasis in original.) Defendant provided a preferred service email and asked “that the Court and Plaintiff honor this accommodation as necessary for meaningful access to the judicial process.” (Id. at p. 8:20-21.) According to Plaintiff’s counsel, Defendant had also served these interrogatories and requests via email on October 7, 2025. (Milstead Decl., ¶ 2.)

Defendant served responses on November 10, 2025. (Milstead Decl., ¶ 4.)

In addressing the issue itself, the Court stated:

At the outset, regarding Defendant’s argument that he has not agreed to electronic service, the Court disagrees, as Defendant expressly consented to electronic service in his discovery requests, and filed his consent with the Court. More importantly, Plaintiff also served the discovery via mail at the address listed on Defendant’s filings in this case. Thus, service of the discovery requests was effective.

(Order, p. 3, bold and italics in original.)

Defendant seeks reconsideration of this finding that he consented to electronic service.

As noted above, the challenged finding was contained in an order issued by the Honorable Alan Hardcastle, who is presently retired and was serving as a visiting judge at the time the order at

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV023298: NORDSTROM, INC. vs EMER 08/05/2026 Hearing on Motion for Reconsideration in Department 8C

issue here was made. Due to Judge Hardcastle’s unavailability, this Court will adjudicate Defendant’s motion for reconsideration. (See Williamson v. Mazda Motor of America, Inc. (2012) 212 Cal.App.4th 449, 455 [reconsideration motion properly heard by different judge where judge who issued challenged ruling is retired].)

Motions for reconsideration are governed by Code of Civil Procedure section 1008(a), which states:

When an application for an order has been made to a judge, or to a court, and refused in whole or in part, or granted, or granted conditionally, or on terms, any party affected by the order may, within 10 days after service upon the party of written notice of entry of the order and based upon new or different facts, circumstances, or law, make application to the same judge or court that made the order, to reconsider the matter and modify, amend, or revoke the prior order. The party making the application shall state by affidavit what application was made before, when and to what judge, what order or decisions were made, and what new or different facts, circumstances, or law are claimed to be shown.

(Code Civ. Proc. § 1008(a).)

Even assuming that it is appropriate to move for reconsideration of an ancillary finding in an order that did not ultimately affect the disposition of the underlying motion, Defendant has not met the requirements for reconsideration. A motion for reconsideration must be based on “new or different facts, circumstances, or law.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 1008(a).) “A party seeking reconsideration also must provide a satisfactory explanation for the failure to produce the evidence at an earlier time.” (New York Times Co. v. Superior Court (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 206, 212.) Defendant has not presented any new or different facts, circumstances, or law that he could not have presented by January 26, 2026.

Therefore, Defendant’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1019.5; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1312.)