DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
98AS01711·sacramento·Civil·Civil Litigation
Hearing about 1 year agoDROPPED

RAG SINGH VS SANJAY KAUSHISH

Allow Renewal of Late Judgment

Hearing date
Aug 11, 2025
Department
53
Prevailing
N/A
Appearance
Not required

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffRag Singh
DefendantSanjay Kaushish

Ruling

98AS01711: RAG SINGH VS SANJAY KAUSHISH 08/11/2025 Hearing on Motion - Other Allow Renewal of Late Judgment in Department 53

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to “Public Notice – Civil Division – Wednesday Law and Motion Calendar” any oral arguments regarding this tentative ruling will be heard in Department 25, located at 720 9th Street, Sacramento, CA, the Hon. Julie G. Yap presiding. Should argument be requested by either party, the requesting party must call the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615, by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the hearing, request the hearing, and notify the opposing party of the location and time of hearing pursuant to Local Rule 1.06.

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.

The Court encourages parties to appear remotely for the hearing on the tentative ruling through the Court’s Zoom Application. But, any party wishing to appear in person may do so, provided that party notifies the Court by 4:00 the Court day before the hearing. 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/my/sscdept25 SIP Address: 16113421868@sip.zoomgov.com (833) 568-8864 ID: 16113421868 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.

98AS01711: RAG SINGH VS SANJAY KAUSHISH 08/11/2025 Hearing on Motion - Other Allow Renewal of Late Judgment in Department 53

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

This matter is DROPPED from calendar due to defective service of notice which deprives the Court of jurisdiction to consider this matter. (See, e.g., Lee v. Placer Title Co. (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 503, 509-511.)

The proof of service attached to the moving papers fails to comply with Code of Civil Procedure §1013a in several respects, as the proof of service purportedly executed by “Sam Harris” fails (1) to “show[] the name and residence or business address of the person making the service,” (2) to “show[] that he or she is a resident of or employed in the county where the mailing occurs,” (3) to “show[] the date and place of deposit in the mail,” and (4) to show[] that the envelope was sealed and deposited in the mail with the postage thereon fully prepaid.” (Underline added for emphasis.)

Finally, although not essential to this ruling, the present motion does not appear to be supported by competent evidence sufficient to establish any or all of the assertions therein or otherwise identify any legal authority which entitles the moving party to any or all of the relief requested.

The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312 or further notice is required.

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share