LESTER-WATTS vs LESTER

25CV021364: LESTER-WATTS vs LESTER 08/19/2026 Hearing on Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint 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 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

25CV021364: LESTER-WATTS vs LESTER 08/19/2026 Hearing on Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint in Department 8C

(833) 568-8864

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***

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV021364: LESTER-WATTS vs LESTER 08/19/2026 Hearing on Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint in Department 8C

Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a first amended complaint is DROPPED from the calendar for defective service.

The proof of service filed in connection with the moving papers state that Defendant Michael Aaron Lester, in pro per, was served electronically.

Electronic service on an unrepresented party is ineffective absent express consent. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1010.6, subd. (c); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.251(c)(3)(B).) Express consent to electronic service may be given by either: (1) serving a notice on all parties and filing the notice with the Court, or (2) manifesting affirmative consent through electronic means with the Court or the Court’s electronic filing service provider, and concurrently providing the party’s electronic address with that consent for the purpose of receiving electronic service. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1010.6, subd. (c)(3).) “The act of electronic filing shall not be construed as express consent.” (Ibid.)

“A party . . . may manifest affirmative consent by serving notice of consent to all parties and other persons and either: [¶] (i) Agreeing to the terms of service with an electronic filing service provider, which clearly states that agreement constitutes consent to received electronic service; or [¶] (ii) Filing Consent to Electronic Service and Notice of Electronic Service Address (form EFS-005-CV).” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.251(b)(1)(B).)

Here, there is no evidence that Defendant consented to receiving electronic service in the manner provided by Code of Civil Procedure section 1010.6 and California Rules of Court, rule 2.251. Defective service deprives the court of jurisdiction to act. (Lee v. Placer Title Co. (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 503, 509.)

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.)