CITIBANK N.A. vs KAMAU

25CV011889: CITIBANK N.A. vs KAMAU 08/10/2026 Hearing on Motion to Vacate Dismissal and Entry Judgment Under Terms of Stipulated Settlement 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

25CV011889: CITIBANK N.A. vs KAMAU 08/10/2026 Hearing on Motion to Vacate Dismissal and Entry Judgment Under Terms of Stipulated Settlement 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***

Plaintiff Citibank, N.A.’s (“Plaintiff”) motion to vacate dismissal and enter judgment under terms of stipulated settlement is UNOPPOSED and ruled upon as follows.

Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice is granted.

“If parties to pending litigation stipulate, in a writing signed by the parties outside of the

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV011889: CITIBANK N.A. vs KAMAU 08/10/2026 Hearing on Motion to Vacate Dismissal and Entry Judgment Under Terms of Stipulated Settlement in Department 8C

presence of the court or orally before the court, for settlement of the case, or part thereof, the court, upon motion, may enter judgment pursuant to the terms of the settlement.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 664.6(a).)

This is a debt collection action. Plaintiff and Defendant in pro per Lucy Kamau (“Defendant”) executed a written settlement agreement in July of 2025. (DiPiero Decl., ¶ 2; RJN Exh. B (hereafter, “Settlement Agreement”).) On August 13, 2025, this action was dismissed with the Court retaining jurisdiction pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6.

Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the parties agreed that Defendant was indebted to Plaintiff in the amount of $4,999.55, and that Plaintiff was entitled to a judgment in that amount plus court costs. (Settlement Agreement, ¶¶ 1-2.) Judgment would not be entered so long as Defendant did not default in the agreed upon payment plan to satisfy the debt. (Id. at ¶ 3.) The payment plan called for Defendant to pay a one-time payment of $208.00 by June 26, 2025; a one-time payment of $681.55 by July 25, 2025; and monthly payments of $685.00 due on the 25th day of each month thereafter until the indebted amount was paid in full. (Id. at ¶ 4.) If Defendant defaulted, Plaintiff would be entitled to file a motion to enter judgment in the full indebted amount, plus court costs as described in the Settlement Agreement, less any payments made. (Ibid.)

Defendant has defaulted on the Settlement Agreement. (DiPiero Decl., ¶ 4.) However, the remaining balance on the debt is not clear from Plaintiff’s moving papers. Plaintiff’s counsel declares that Defendant has paid $4,105.38. (DiPiero Decl., ¶ 6.) This would make the amount owed $894.17, and the judgment would be that amount plus court costs. However, Plaintiff’s counsel also declares that the remaining balance on the principal is $2,055.00, and thus Plaintiff seeks a judgment amount of $2,658.61 after adding $603.61 in court costs. (DiPiero Decl., ¶ 7.)

Given this discrepancy, the Court is unable to grant the relief requested on the record before it. Plaintiff’s counsel may appear at the hearing and provide an amended declaration that establishes the correct amount owed on the debt, as well as an amended proposed order and amended proposed judgment consistent with that amount. If Plaintiff provides this information at the hearing to the Court’s satisfaction, then the motion will be granted. Otherwise, the motion will be denied without prejudice.

Plaintiff’s request for court costs in the amount of $603.61 is based on a prematurely filed memorandum of costs. The memorandum of costs filed on February 9, 2026 is stricken. Plaintiff may file and serve a new memorandum of costs in compliance with the requirements of Rule 3.1700(a)(1) of the California Rules of Court.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV011889: CITIBANK N.A. vs KAMAU 08/10/2026 Hearing on Motion to Vacate Dismissal and Entry Judgment Under Terms of Stipulated Settlement in Department 8C