Capital One NA v. London, Juliann

PLACER COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL LAW AND MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS TUESDAY, AUGUST 25, 2026

These are the tentative rulings for civil law and motion matters set at 8:30 a.m. on Tuesday, August 25, 2026. The tentative ruling will be the court’s final ruling unless notice of appearance and request for oral argument are given to all parties and the court by 4:00 p.m., Monday, August 24, 2026. Notice of request for oral argument to the court must be made by calling (916) 408-6481. Requests for oral argument made by any other method will not be accepted. Prevailing parties are required to submit orders after hearing to the court within 10 court days of the scheduled hearing date, and after approval as to form by opposing counsel. Court reporters are not provided by the court. Parties may provide a court reporter at their own expense.

Except as otherwise noted, these tentative rulings are issued by the HONORABLE TRISHA J. HIRASHIMA and if oral argument is requested, it will be heard at 8:30 a.m. in Department 32, located at 10820 Justice Center Drive, Roseville, California 95678.

PLEASE NOTE: REMOTE APPEARANCES ARE STRONGLY ENCOURAGED FOR ALL CIVIL LAW AND MOTION MATTERS. (Local Rule 10.24.) More information is available at the court’s website: www.placer.courts.ca.gov.

1. M-CV-0087402 Capital One NA v. London, Juliann

If oral argument is requested, it will be heard in Department 32 by the Honorable Trisha J. Hirashima.

Motion to Enforce Settlement

Plaintiff moves to set aside dismissal and enter judgment on stipulation pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 in the amount of $810 in principal damages plus costs of $603.61 for a total judgment of $1,413.61. Defendant has not filed any opposition.

This motion was initially scheduled for hearing on July 23, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 3. However, given changes to the court’s calendar, the court rescheduled this matter to be heard on August 4, 2026. There was no evidence in the court’s file that defendant was served with notice of continued hearing, so the court previously continued the motion to today and directed plaintiff to serve defendant with a copy of the ruling and to file a proof of service with the court by August 7, 2026. (Civil Law and Motion minutes, Aug. 4, 2026.)

A review of the court’s file reveals no evidence plaintiff served notice of continued hearing on defendant as the court had directed. The motion to enforce settlement is therefore denied without prejudice.

2. M-CV-0094263 Citibank NA v. Saed, Marleen

Motion to deem admitted plaintiff’s requests for admissions, set one

Plaintiff moves to deem admitted plaintiff’s requests for admissions, set one.

Section 2033.280 of the California Code of Civil Procedure states “[i]f a party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to serve a timely response... (b) [t]he requesting party may move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted.”

Defendant did not file an opposition.

Plaintiff’s unopposed motion to deem admitted plaintiff’s requests for admissions, set one, is granted. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280 (b).) Defendant is deemed to have admitted the matters set forth in plaintiff’s requests for admissions, set one.

3. S-CV-0047732 Northstar Village Assn. v. CLP Northstar

This tentative ruling is issued by the Honorable Michael W. Jones. The case management conference is continued to September 17, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 3 by the Honorable Michael W. Jones.

4. S-CV-0050523 Patel, Ragini v. Kaur, Manjit

Defendant is advised the notice of motion must include notice of the court’s tentative ruling procedures. (Local Rule 20.2.3(C).)

Motion to Sever or Bifurcate

Defendant Tawfiq Morrar moves to bifurcate trial. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 598, 1048, subd. (b).) Specifically, defendant moves to bifurcate the issue of qualified immunity under Civil Code section 2924(b) from the other issues to be determined at trial. Plaintiff Ragini Patel opposes the motion.

Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice is granted as to exhibits A through D to the extent they are filed court records. However, the court does not take judicial notice of the information alleged and declared in exhibits A through C.

As issues of trial management are generally best addressed by the trial judge, the motion to bifurcate is denied without prejudice to being renewed at the time of trial.

2