Bear Mountain Development Company, LLC vs. State of California

34-2021-00303948-CU-BC-GDS: Bear Mountain Development Company, LLC vs. State of California 08/20/2026 Hearing on Motion of Summary Judgment/Adjudication in Department 16C

Tentative Ruling

Bear Mountain Development Company, LLC v. State of California/DGS

D.16C – Aug. 20, 2026 MSJ/MSA

Moving counsel states the incorrect address for the hearing in its Notice of Motion and does not provide notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system, as required by Local Rule 1.06(D). Department 54 has moved to Department 16C at the Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye Courthouse at 500 G Street, Sacramento, CA 95814. Moving counsel is directed to contact opposing counsel forthwith to advise counsel of the correct Department/address for the hearing, Local Rule 1.06, and the Court’s tentative ruling procedure. If moving counsel is unable to contact opposing counsel prior to the hearing, they shall be available at the hearing in the event opposing counsel appears without following the procedures set forth in Local Rule 1.06(B).

Cross-Defendant River Capital Holding, LLC’s (RCH) motion for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication, is DENIED as follows.

Factual Background

This action arises out of Defendant/Cross-Complainant State of California, by and through the Department of General Services’ (“DGS”) contract with Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Bear Mountain Development Company, LLC’s (“Bear Mountain”) for the purchase of personal protective equipment (“PPE”) during the COVID-19 epidemic.

Bear Mountain filed its initial Complaint on December 15, 2020. Following multiple challenges to the pleadings by DGS, on August 4, 2022, Bear Mountain filed the Third Amended Complaint (“3AC”). In the 3AC, Bear Mountain alleged one cause of action for breach of contract against DGS.[1]

On September 7, 2022, DGS filed a Cross-Complaint against Bear Mountain and several other cross-defendants. DGS filed the operative First Amended Cross-Complaint (“1XC”) on June 6, 2025. The 1XC alleges causes of action for (1) breach of contract and covenant of good faith and fair dealing, (2) promissory estoppel, (3) fraud, and (4) restitution/unjust enrichment against Bear Mountain; RHC; Joseph Giamanco, Jr.; Enrico Cifelli a/k/a Rick Cifelli; River Capital Holdings, LLC; River Capital Group, LLC; DIVOC 91, LLC, d/b/a River Capital Group Holdings; Chad Altieri Esquire PL d/b/a Altieri & Associates; River Capital Group Holdings, LLC; and TSG Funding, LLC.

34-2021-00303948-CU-BC-GDS: Bear Mountain Development Company, LLC vs. State of California 08/20/2026 Hearing on Motion of Summary Judgment/Adjudication in Department 16C

The 1XC alleges in pertinent part as follows:

2. [Bear Mountain] is an Alabama limited liability company with its principal place of business in Montgomery, Alabama. On information and belief, Bear Mountain was, at all relevant times, owned and operated by Troy King and John Warren Godwin (aka J.W. Godwin). On information and belief, King and Godwin formed Bear Mountain in September 2014, for the purpose of engaging in the business of subdividing real property into lots and developing it for resale.

3. [Giamanco] is an individual residing in Monmouth County, New Jersey.

4. [Cifelli] is an individual residing in Monmouth County, New Jersey.

5. Cross-Defendant River Capital Holdings, LLC is a Delaware limited liability company that was formed on or about May 6, 2005. On or about June 1, 2008, the Delaware Division of Corporations cancelled River Capital Holdings, LLC’s certificate of formation for failing to pay taxes.

6. Cross-defendant River Capital Holding LLC is a New York limited liability company that was formed on or about February 14, 2020.

7. Cross-defendant River Capital Group LLC is a New York limited liability company that was formed on or about January 2, 2019.

8. Cross-defendant DIVOC 91 LLC d/b/a River Capital Holdings is a New Jersey limited liability company that was formed on or about April 23, 2020.

9. Cross-defendant River Capital Group Holdings, LLC (RCGH) is a Delaware limited liability company that was formed on or about December 10, 2014. On information and belief, RCGH had, at all relevant times, an office located at 501 Madison Avenue, 10th Floor, New York, NY 10022. On information and belief, Giamanco was, at all relevant times, the managing director for RCGH. At all relevant times and with

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2021-00303948-CU-BC-GDS: Bear Mountain Development Company, LLC vs. State of California 08/20/2026 Hearing on Motion of Summary Judgment/Adjudication in Department 16C

Giamanco’s knowledge and approval, Cifelli held himself out as acting for and on behalf of RCGH.

10. On information and belief, cross-defendants RCGH, River Capital Holdings, LLC,, Cross-defendant River Capital Holding LLC, River Capital Group LLC, and DIVOC 91 LLC d/b/a River Capital Holdings (collectively, the River Capital Entities) were, at all relevant times, alter egos of cross- defendants Giamanco and/or Cifelli because (i) Giamanco and/or Cifelli dominated, influenced, and controlled each of the River Capital Entities as well as the business and affairs of each of the River Capital Entities, (ii) there exists a unity of interest and ownership between Giamanco and/or Cifelli and the River Capital Entities such that any individuality and separateness between and among between Giamanco and/or Cifelli and the River Capital Entities have ceased to exist, (iii) Giamanco and/or Cifelli created and used the River Capital Entities as mere shells and conduits, (iv) Giamanco and/or Cifelli created and used the River Capital Entities pursuant to a fraudulent plan, scheme, and device by which the income, revenue, and profits of the River Capital Entities are diverted to Giamanco and/or Cifelli, and (v) Giamanco and/or Cifelli created the River Capital Entities as a device to avoid individual liability and for the purpose of substituting financially irresponsible companies in their place and, accordingly, each River Capital Entity was formed with inadequate capitalization for the business in which they were engaged.

By virtue of the foregoing, adherence to the fiction of the separate corporate existence of the River Capital Entities from Giamanco and Cifelli would permit an abuse of corporate privileges and would sanction fraud and promote injustice and permit Giamanco and/or Cifelli to benefit from the actions that are the subject of this Cross-Complaint.

11. On information and belief, the River Capital Entities, and each of them, have operated and currently operate as a single integrated business enterprise by having an interrelation of operations, common management, centralized control of labor relations, and/or common ownership and financial control. Although the River Capital Entities had several corporate, entity, and individual name or personalities, there is but one enterprise and this enterprise has been handled such that it should respond as a whole for the actions that are the subject of

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2021-00303948-CU-BC-GDS: Bear Mountain Development Company, LLC vs. State of California 08/20/2026 Hearing on Motion of Summary Judgment/Adjudication in Department 16C

this Cross Complaint. Each River Capital Entity has been and is merely an instrument and conduit for the other in the pursuit of a single business venture. By virtue of the foregoing, adherence to the fiction of the separate corporate existence of each of the River Capital Entities would permit an abuse of corporate privileges and would sanction fraud and promote injustice and permit the River Capital Entities to benefit from the actions that are the subject of this Cross-Complaint.

...

20. On March 27, 2020, Bear Mountain submitted a quote to sell the state 400 million surgical masks at a unit price of $0.55 each and 200 million face shields at a unit price of $2.60 each. The quote included [a] delivery schedule, which Bear Mountain stated in writing accurately represented the dates it could and would deliver the PPE to the state.

21. In reliance on Bear Mountain’s representations, on March 27, 2020, DGS issued Purchase Order No. M12948-T7153, accepting Bear Mountain’s offer as reflected in its quote. On March 27, 2020, and again on April 2, 2020, Bear Mountain confirmed in writing that it could and would fulfill the purchase order.

22. DGS’s issuance of the purchase order created a fully integrated written contract between Bear Mountain and DGS.

24. Unbeknownst to DGS at the time, Bear Mountain did not have a direct supply of surgical masks or face shields, nor did it have the financial means to acquire the surgical masks and face shields to fulfill DGS’s purchase order. On information and belief, Bear Mountain was relying on an Arizona-based company named ZivoE and/or individuals or entities affiliated with ZivoE to finance and/or source PPE to fulfill the purchase order. Moreover, ZivoE informed Bear Mountain that it was not planning to source from the manufacturers identified in the product specifications provided to the state, and the products it was sourcing were not FDA or CE approved as medical/surgical masks and face shields.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2021-00303948-CU-BC-GDS: Bear Mountain Development Company, LLC vs. State of California 08/20/2026 Hearing on Motion of Summary Judgment/Adjudication in Department 16C

ZivoE also informed Bear Mountain that it might not be able to adhere to the delivery schedule included in Bear Mountain’s quote. At some time between April 2 to April 11, 2020, ZivoE’s involvement in the contract ended, and Bear Mountain began working with Giamanco and Cifelli/the River Capital Entities to obtain the funds and other resources necessary to fulfill the state’s purchase order.

27. On April 15, 2020, Bear Mountain sent [DGS] a notice regarding Bear Mountain’s assignment of the contract (the Notice). The Notice was signed by Chad Altieri and stated that Bear Mountain had assigned “all monies due or to become due” under the contract to “ALTIERI & ASSOCIATES (the ‘Assignee’), a Florida limited liability company.” The Notice attached as an exhibit an Assignment of Claims dated April 14, 2020, which stated that Bear Mountain, “subject to the terms of the Escrow Agreement to be executed between the parties, does hereby assign, transfer and set over to River Capital Holdings, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, having an office at 501 Madison Avenue, 10th Floor, New York NY 10022 (the ‘Assignee’), its successors and assigns, all [Bear Mountain’s] obligations, right title and interest in and to amounts due or to become due under the [contract].”

28. Bear Mountain, including individuals authorized to act on its behalf represented verbally and in writing that the assignment was a limited assignment for payment to an escrow agent (Altieri & Associates) required by Bear Mountain’s lender, and that the assignment did not affect Bear Mountain’s performance under the contract.

29. On information and belief, the Assignment of Claims was an assignment of Bear Mountain’s “rights and interest to the Purchase Order” to RCGH, pursuant to which RCGH would “sell[] the Goods to the State . . . as an assignee of [Bear Mountain] through the Purchase Order.” (Ex. G.) On information and belief, RCGH accepted the assignment and entered into the Escrow Agreement.

30. Also unbeknownst to DGS at the time, by April

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2021-00303948-CU-BC-GDS: Bear Mountain Development Company, LLC vs. State of California 08/20/2026 Hearing on Motion of Summary Judgment/Adjudication in Department 16C

15, 2020, the cross-defendants had acquired some PPE to deliver to the state, but the PPE they acquired did not conform to the specifications required under the contract. Moreover, the cross-defendants had not sourced or secured all the PPE necessary to fulfill the purchase order, and they were still looking for suppliers as of April 29, 2020, at the latest.

31. The first delivery deadlines came and went without Bear Mountain’s delivery of a single item of PPE under the contract. DGS did not receive any delivery under the contract until April 23, 2020. From April 23 to May 3, 2020, DGS received a total of 10,745,000 face masks and 557,000 face shields, but none conformed to the specifications required under the contract, and the quantities delivered fell far short of the amounts contracted for and reflected in the delivery schedules.

33. On May 1, 2020, DGS sent Bear Mountain a notice of termination of the contract for default for Bear Mountain’s failure to deliver the PPE within the time specified in the contract. Pursuant to the notice, DGS accepted deliveries of PPE under the contract through May 3, 2020. On June 10, 2020, DGS paid the contract price for all the non-conforming PPE that was delivered and accepted under the contract (a total of $7,357,950) to Altieri & Associates pursuant to the Notice of Assignment.

34. Following the termination of the contract, DGS entered into several different contracts to procure the surgical masks and face shields that Bear Mountain was required, but failed, to provide under the contract. To acquire substitute goods within a timely manner, DGS was forced to pay significantly higher prices than under the contract with Bear Mountain.

35. On December 15, 2020, Bear Mountain initiated this lawsuit by filing a complaint for damages against the state, claiming that DGS’s termination of the contract was a breach. DGS demurred to the complaint for lack of standing or, in the alternative, failure to join an indispensable party based on the April 14, 2020 Assignment of Claims to River Capital Holdings, LLC. The court ruled that River Capital Holdings, LLC was an

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2021-00303948-CU-BC-GDS: Bear Mountain Development Company, LLC vs. State of California 08/20/2026 Hearing on Motion of Summary Judgment/Adjudication in Department 16C

indispensable party and sustained DGS’s demurrer with leave to amend. Bear Mountain filed an amended complaint but did not join River Capital and offered no explanation as to why. Instead, it alleged that River Capital Holdings, LLC and Altieri & Associates reassigned the contract to Bear Mountain pursuant to a General Assignment executed on January 26, 2022 (the 2022 Assignment).

36. Neither DGS nor any other state agency consented to the 2022 Assignment. Neither River Capital, Altieri & Associates, nor anyone purporting to act on their behalf has ever filed any pre-suit claim or demand against DGS or any other state agency regarding the contract.

(1XC ¶¶ 2-36 [emphasis added].)

Based on the foregoing facts, DGS alleges in the 1XC causes of action for breach of contract and covenant of good faith and fair dealing, promissory estoppel, fraud, and restitution/unjust enrichment against all cross-defendants.

RCH now moves for summary judgment on the 1XC or, in the alternative, summary adjudication on each of the causes of action alleged therein.

Legal Standard

In ruling on a motion for summary judgment/adjudication, the Court engages in a three-step process.

First, the Court identifies the issues framed by the pleadings. The pleadings define the scope of the issues on a motion for summary judgment. (FPI Dev. Inc. v. Nakashima (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 367, 381-382.) Because a motion for summary judgment is limited to the issues raised by the pleadings (Lewis v. Chevron (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 690, 694), all evidence submitted in support of or in opposition to the motion must be addressed to the claims and defenses raised in the pleadings. The Court cannot consider an unpleaded issue in ruling on a motion for summary judgment. (Roth v. Rhodes (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 530, 541.)

Next, the Court must determine whether the moving party has met its burden.

A defendant moving for summary judgment bears the burden of showing that one or more elements of the plaintiff’s cause(s) of action cannot be established, or that there is a complete defense to the cause(s) of action. (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850 [quoting Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(2)].) “The ‘tried and true’ way for defendants to meet

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2021-00303948-CU-BC-GDS: Bear Mountain Development Company, LLC vs. State of California 08/20/2026 Hearing on Motion of Summary Judgment/Adjudication in Department 16C

their burden of proof on summary judgment motions is to present affirmative evidence (declarations, etc.) negating, as a matter of law, an essential element of plaintiff’s claim.” (Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civ. Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2025 Update) ¶ 10:241 [citing cases] [emphasis omitted].) “Another way for a defendant to obtain summary judgment is to ‘show’ that an essential element of plaintiff’s claim cannot be established.” (Id. at ¶ 10:242 [citing Aguilar, supra, at p. 854].)

Once the moving party has met its initial burden, the burden shifts to the opposing party to show that a material factual issue exists as to the cause of action alleged or an affirmative defense claimed. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(1); Aguilar, supra, at p. 850.) If the moving party fails to meet its burden, however, the motion must be denied; the opposing party need not make any showing at all. (Consumer Cause, Inc. v. SmileCare (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 454, 468-477.)

Finally, in ruling on the motion, the Court must consider the evidence and inferences reasonably drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the opposing party. (Aguilar, supra, at p. 843; Johnson v. American Standard, Inc. (2008) 43 Cal.4th 56, 64 [“[W]e liberally construe plaintiff’s evidentiary submissions and strictly scrutinize defendant’s own evidence, in order to resolve any evidentiary doubts or ambiguities in plaintiff’s favor.”].) Summary judgment is properly granted only if the moving party’s evidence establishes that there is no issue of material fact to be tried. (Lipson v. Super. Ct. (1982) 31 Cal.3d 362, 374.)

Evidentiary Objections

Cross-Complainant’s Objections 1, 2, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, and 24 are overruled. The declarant states that he is the sole managing member of River Capital Holding, LLC and is a signatory to the document. As such he would have knowledge to authenticate the documents and support the statements.

Objection 3 is overruled, it is not vague and ambiguous.

Objection 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 12 are overruled. They are not vague and ambiguous and as the sole managing member of River Capital Holding, LLC and secretary of Growmore he has personal knowledge of the nature of the business.

Objection 10 and 11 are overruled. Evidence Code §356 does not preclude evidence, it only allows an adverse party to add any other evidence needed to understand the evidence.

Objection 21 is sustained.

The Court need not rule on RCH’s objections to evidence as the challenged evidence is immaterial to the Court’s disposition of the motion. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (q).)

Discussion

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2021-00303948-CU-BC-GDS: Bear Mountain Development Company, LLC vs. State of California 08/20/2026 Hearing on Motion of Summary Judgment/Adjudication in Department 16C

RCH moves for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication on the 1XC on the ground that it “was misidentified and improperly named in this action and has no connection to the parties, agreements, transactions, or subject matter at issue.” (Not. of Mot. & Mot. 2:21- 22.) RCH argues:

The undisputed evidence establishes [RCH] is a New York limited liability company formed for the sole purpose of owning and leasing a single commercial condominium unit in New York City. [RCH] has never manufactured, purchased, sold, delivered, brokered, or otherwise dealt in personal protective equipment. It has never contracted or communicated with DGS, Plaintiff Bear Mountain Development Company, LLC or any of the individuals or entities named as Cross-Defendants, including similarly named entities such as River Capital Holdings, LLC, River Capital Group LLC, River Capital Group Holdings, LLC, and Divoc 91, LLC d/b/a River Capital Group Holdings.

It is not party to any escrow agreement or assignment alleged in the pleadings; and it has never received any funds from any party in this litigation. [RCH] was sued due to misidentification arising from the similarity of its name to unrelated entities. Because [RCH] has no relation to this suit and was misidentified as a Cross-Defendant, all of the State’s causes of action against River Capital Holding, LLC must fail.

(Id. at 2:22-3:7.)

In the 1XC, Bear Mountain makes direct allegations against RCH. For example, in support of the breach of contract a claim, Bear Mountain alleges:

On or about April 14, 2020, Bear Mountain assigned all its rights under the contract to the River Capital Entities, Giamanco, Cifelli, and/or Roes 3 through 50, and the River Capital Entities, Giamanco, Cifelli, and/or Roes 3-50 accepted Bear Mountain’s assignment and agreed to perform its obligations under the contract. The cross-defendants repeatedly breached the contract by, including, without limitation failing to deliver conforming surgical masks and face shields within the time required under the contract.

(1XC ¶¶ 41-43.) RCH’s alleged liability is also expressly premised, however, on alter ego and single enterprise theories of liability. (See 1XC ¶¶ 10, 11.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2021-00303948-CU-BC-GDS: Bear Mountain Development Company, LLC vs. State of California 08/20/2026 Hearing on Motion of Summary Judgment/Adjudication in Department 16C

Under California law, both the alter ego doctrine and the single enterprise theory are equitable tools for disregarding the corporate form and imposing liability beyond a single legal entity. They share the same fundamental two-prong test — requiring a unity of interest and an inequitable result — but differ primarily in the corporate relationship they address. Alter ego liability is traditionally invoked in the parent-subsidiary or shareholder-corporation context, while the single enterprise theory extends that logic horizontally to sister or affiliated companies operating under common control.

California courts treat single enterprise as a variant of alter ego. (See, e.g., Sonora Diamond Corp. v. Super. Ct. (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 523, 538-539 [discussing alter ego doctrine]; JPV I L.P. v. Koetting (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 172, 189 [same]; Las Palmas Assoc. v. Las Palmas Center Assoc. (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 1220, 1249-1251 [discussing alter ego doctrine and single enterprise theory]; Toho-Towa Co., Ltd. v. Morgan Creek Productions, Inc. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 1096, 1106-1109 [same].)

Despite the different contexts in which the two doctrines are applied, both of them apply the same referenced two-prong test. Moreover, the factors relevant to deciding both doctrines are similar and include: the commingling of funds and other assets of the entities, the holding out by one entity that it is liable for the debts of the other, identical equitable ownership in the two entities, use of the same offices and employees, use of one as a mere shell or conduit for the affairs of the other, inadequate capitalization, disregard of corporate formalities, lack of segregation of corporate records, and identical directors and officers. (See Sonora Diamond Corp., supra, at p. 538-539; Toho-Towa Co., Ltd., supra, at p. 1108-1109.)

No one factor governs; the court must look at all of the circumstances to determine whether the doctrines should be applied. (Sonora Diamond Corp., supra, at p. 539; Toho-Towa Co., Ltd., supra, at p. 1109.)

Here, the declaration of Akshaye Sanghavi specifically denies any relationship with the other defendants or with the transactions that are the subject of this lawsuit. Having done that, the burden shifts to Cross-Complainant to show that Cross-Defendant River Capital Holding, LLC was involved in the transaction or is an alter ego of the other Cross-defendants. Cross- Complainant has proffered no evidence to refute the evidence supplied by Cross-Defendant River Capital Holding, LLC. It did offer evidence that RCH may not have complied with all necessary business and property ownership requirements and that there is an inconsistency in identifying the location of it’s property, but there is not a scintilla of evidence showing that RCH had any relationship with any of the other cross-defendants or with the transactions that are the basis of this lawsuit.

The Court notes that RCH also addressed the alter ego/single enterprise liability in its reply brief.

For the stated reasons, RCH’s motion for summary judgment is granted.

RCH’s counsel shall prepare an order pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2021-00303948-CU-BC-GDS: Bear Mountain Development Company, LLC vs. State of California 08/20/2026 Hearing on Motion of Summary Judgment/Adjudication in Department 16C

[1] DGS filed a motion for summary judgment seeking judgment in its favor and against Bear Mountain on the 3AC. The Court granted that motion on March 1, 2024. The Court entered a formal order granting DGS’s summary judgment motion on March 15, 2024.

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 16C Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-1475 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 16C Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16030877014 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 160 3087 7014. 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. 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