Resurgence Capital LLC vs. Pavel Savin

34-2013-00139655-CL-CL-GDS: Resurgence Capital LLC vs. Pavel Savin 06/12/2025 Hearing on Motion to Vacate the Judgment in Department 53

Tentative Ruling

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 Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615 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 53/54 Zoom Link is https://saccourt-cagov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept53.54 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 4650 6749. 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 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

34-2013-00139655-CL-CL-GDS: Resurgence Capital LLC vs. Pavel Savin 06/12/2025 Hearing on Motion to Vacate the Judgment in Department 53

will forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

TENTATIVE RULING: Self-represented Defendant’s unopposed motion to vacate judgment is denied.

In Defendant’s two page motion, Defendant seeks to set aside a judgment entered in Plaintiff Resurgence Capital, LLC Legal Group, PC on August 16, 2013, and renewed on April 3, 2023. Defendant “alleges” that he was not properly served with “legal documents” and “the Defendant is NOT THE JUDGMENT DEBTOR NAMED on the Notice Levy.” (Mot. 2:1-3) Defendant alleges the judgment was the result of identity theft which was reported to the IRS in 2021.

Here, the motion must be denied for multiple independent reasons. First the motion fails to include a Notice setting forth the specific grounds for relief as required by Code of Civil Procedure § 1010. Second, Defendant fails to cite any legal authority which would allow the judgment to be set aside at this time. Third, even if Defendant could make a timely challenge to the underlying basis for the judgment, Defendant does not submit any evidence to support his claim that the judgment should be set aside. Specifically, the motion consists of approximately two paragraphs and is not supported by any declaration executed under penalty of perjury. Each of these deficiencies provides separate grounds requiring denial of the motion.

The Court will further note that although Defendant is self-represented in this action in propria persona, and likely has little to no legal training, self-represented litigants are not entitled to special treatment. (Nelson v. Gaunt (1981) 125 Cal. App.3d 623, 638-639.) Self-represented litigants are required to follow the same procedural rules that govern civil litigation. (McComber v. Wells (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 512, 522-523.) A selfrepresented party is to be treated like any other party and is entitled to the same, but no greater, consideration than other litigants and attorneys. (Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1246-1247; Barton v. New United Motor Manufacturing, Inc. (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 1200, 1210).

While the Court denies Defendant’s motion, such ruling does not preclude Defendant from contacting the judgment creditor regarding any questions Defendant may have regarding the judgment at issue.

The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312 or further notice is required.