Motion to Compel Arbitration
23CV008414: CITIBANK, N.A. vs RASCON 10/30/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Arbitration in Department 53
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 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 53 Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept53.54 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 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.
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?”
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. 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
23CV008414: CITIBANK, N.A. vs RASCON 10/30/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Arbitration in Department 53
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.
TENTATIVE RULING:
*** The Court still finds in its file no proof of service demonstrating moving defendants service of the Notice of Disclosure issued on 4/29/2025, despite initially being directed to serve all other parties with the Notice of Disclosure forthwith and despite subsequently being directed by the Courts order dated 10/2/2025 to serve the Notice of Disclosure within five court days. Moving defendant is again directed to serve the Notice of Disclosure on all other parties forthwith and to file proof of service within five (5) court days. ***
Defendants moving papers again do not provide notice of the Courts tentative ruling system, as required by Local Rule 1.06. Moving defendant is directed to contact opposing counsel and advise him/her of Local Rule 1.06 and the Courts tentative ruling procedure and the manner to request a hearing. If moving defendant is unable to contact opposing counsel prior to the hearing, moving defendant is ordered to appear at the hearing in person, by Zoom or by telephone.
Defendant in pro per Rascons (second) motion to compel arbitration of plaintiff Citibank, N.A.s (Bank) claims against her and to stay these judicial proceedings pending completion of arbitration is DROPPED from calendar due to defective service of notice which deprives the Court of jurisdiction to consider this matter. (See, e.g., Lee v. Placer Title Co. (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 503, 509-511.) The Court finds insufficient proof of service of this (second) motion to compel arbitration despite CRC Rule 3.1300(c)s requirement that proof of service be filed at least five court days prior to the scheduled hearing date.
Defendant in pro per Rascons (second) motion to compel arbitration indicates under penalty of perjury it was signed by defendant on 10/6/2025 and it was thereafter filed on the same date. Although defendant also filed on 10/6/2025 a separate proof of service, this proof of service indicates that only a Notice of Ruling was served by mail on 10/2/2025 and makes no reference to service of the present motion. Because this proof of service does not attest to service of the present motion to compel arbitration and in any event, even if it had referenced the present motion, because the present motion could not have been served on 10/2/2025 (because the motion itself had not yet been signed and filed as of such date), this Court is unable to find sufficient proof that the present (second) motion to compel arbitration was timely served on plaintiff Bank.
Nor can any amended proof of service be timely filed at this late juncture given that
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
23CV008414: CITIBANK, N.A. vs RASCON 10/30/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Arbitration in Department 53
California Rule of Court, Rule 3.1300(c) states that [p]roof of service must be filed no later than five court days before the time appointed for hearing. Accordingly, the Court is without jurisdiction to entertain the present (second) motion to compel arbitration.
Finally, while the Court makes no ruling on the merits of the present motion, if there are no parties who oppose arbitration of the claims in this case, the parties remain free to submit a signed stipulation with proposed order that specifies this matter shall be submitted to arbitration and judicial proceeding stayed pending completion of arbitration. If the parties so agree and submit the appropriate stipulation and proposed order, they need not proceed by noticed motion.
Moving party 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. (Code Civ. Proc. §1019.5; CRC Rule 3.1312.)