Motion for order releasing abstract of judgment; Motion to lift arbitration stay; Motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute
23CV008414: CITIBANK, N.A. vs RASCON 08/06/2026 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.
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.
23CV008414: CITIBANK, N.A. vs RASCON 08/06/2026 Hearing on Motion to Dismiss in Department 16D
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 forward the form to the Court Reporters Office and an official reporter will be provided.
*** EFFECTIVE APRIL 13, 2026, THIS DEPARTMENT HAS MOVED TO THE TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE COURTHOUSE LOCATED AT 500 G STREET IN SACRAMENTO, CA 95814. ALL HEARINGS NOTICED FOR DEPARTMENT 53 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 16D OF THE NEW COURTHOUSE. ***
The notice of motion does not provide notice of the Courts tentative ruling system, as required by Local Rule 1.06(D). Defendant in pro per is directed to contact opposing counsel forthwith to advise of Local Rule 1.06, the Courts tentative ruling procedure, and the manner to request a hearing. If Defendant is unable to contact opposing counsel prior to the hearing, Defendant shall be available at the hearing, in person or remotely, in the event opposing counsel appears without following the procedures set forth in Local Rule 1.06(B).
Defendants moving papers fail to comply with the formatting requirements of California Rules of Court, rules 2.109, 2.110, 2.111, and 3.1110.
TENTATIVE RULING:
Defendant in pro per Lisseth A. Rascons (Defendant) unopposed motion for order releasing abstract of judgment is GRANTED.[1]
Plaintiff CitiBank, N.A. (Plaintiff) filed its complaint in this debt collection action on September 12, 2023. Default and default judgment were entered against Defendant on September 18, 2024. Plaintiff subsequently recorded an abstract of judgment in Sacramento County records on January 29, 2025. (See Lisseth Decl., Exh. C.) On Defendants unopposed motion, this Court set aside the default and default judgment on August 20, 2025. The abstract of judgment remains in the county records. (Lisseth Decl. ¶ 3.)
Defendant now asks the Court to issue an order releasing the abstract of judgment.
The abstract of judgment has been void since this Court set aside Defendants default
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
23CV008414: CITIBANK, N.A. vs RASCON 08/06/2026 Hearing on Motion to Dismiss in Department 16D
and default judgment. Plaintiff does not oppose this motion.
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendants motion for an order releasing the abstract of judgment. The Court orders Plaintiff to execute and record in Sacramento County an Acknowledgment of Satisfaction of Judgment (Judicial Council Form EJ-100) fully releasing the Abstract of Judgment, Document Number 202501290526, by no later than September 8, 2026.
Moving defendant to provide notice of this ruling and file proof of service of same within five (5) court days of this order.
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.)
[1] On April 21, 2026, Defendant filed her initial motion requested that the Court lift the
arbitration stay, dismiss the action for failure to prosecute, and issue an order releasing the abstract of judgment. On July 29, 2026, Defendant filed supplemental papers stating that Defendant learned arbitration has been initiated. Defendant therefore dropped the requests to lift the arbitration stay and dismiss the action. Plaintiff has not opposed any of these motion papers.