DIVERSE TECHNOLOGY INDUSTRIAL, INC. vs SCOTT, et al.

25CV001510: DIVERSE TECHNOLOGY INDUSTRIAL, INC. vs SCOTT, et al. 08/31/2026 Hearing on Motion to be Relieved as Counsel in Department 8D

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that effective April 13, 2026, this department has moved to the Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye courthouse located at 500 G Street in Sacramento, CA 95814. All hearings noticed for Department 25 will be heard in Department 8D of the new courthouse. Parties who wish to contest the tentative ruling below must: (1) request a hearing by calling the Department 8D Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-7719 no later than 4:00 p.m. on the Court day before the scheduled CMC, and (2) advise opposing counsel of the request.

If a hearing is not requested by 4:00 p.m. on the Court day before the scheduled CMC, the tentative ruling shall become 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. If a hearing is requested, the Court assumes that all parties will appear remotely via Zoom unless the Court orders inperson attendance.

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/16113421868 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.

25CV001510: DIVERSE TECHNOLOGY INDUSTRIAL, INC. vs SCOTT, et al. 08/31/2026 Hearing on Motion to be Relieved as Counsel in Department 8D

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

Alexander J. Wielenga of Herrig, Vogt & Hensley, LLP, counsel for Defendants Taylor Scott and Concrete Resurfacing Systems, Inc. has filed the instant motion requesting to be relieved as counsel. The Court has received no opposition.

Counsel has filed a declaration in support of the motion stating that they bring the instant motion because “Counsel has filed a declaration in support of the motion stating that they bring the instant motion because “Mr. Mattson has failed to respond or otherwise engage in communication regarding this matter. In addition, Mr. Mattson has an outstanding balance for legal services that predates his bankruptcy filing.”

This matter was previously advanced following an ex parte application brought by counsel. The Court’s July 8, 2026 Minute Order states:

Applicant shall serve a copy of this Order on all Parties and clients and file proof of service regarding same by July 15, 2026. Applicant shall file an Amended Notice of Motion and Motion in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure section 1005 based on the new hearing date.

Counsel did not serve their amended notice of motion until August 7, 2026, exactly 16 days before the current hearing date. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1005 and the Court’s above minute order language, the amended notice of motion was required to be filed 16 court days prior to the hearing date (plus two court days would be required for electronic service). As such, Counsel did not provide statutory notice of the amended notice.

Further, as the Court noted in its ruling on the ex parte application, a client's address is considered “current” when it was successfully confirmed within 30 days before filing the motion. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(d).) “Merely demonstrating that the notice was

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV001510: DIVERSE TECHNOLOGY INDUSTRIAL, INC. vs SCOTT, et al. 08/31/2026 Hearing on Motion to be Relieved as Counsel in Department 8D

sent to the client’s last known address and was not returned or no electronic delivery failure message was received is not, by itself, sufficient to demonstrate that the address is current.” (Ibid.) Service at the client's last known address is proper only where counsel “has been unable to locate a more current address after making reasonable efforts to do so within 30 days before the filing of the motion to be relieved.” (Ibid. [emphasis added].) Further, where service is at the client’s last known address that is not confirmed within 30 days of the filing, the notice must also be served on the client by delivering the papers to the clerk of court. (Ibid.; Code Civ. Proc. § 1011(b)(3).)

Even if service was not defective as non-compliant with Code of Civil Procedure section 1005(b) and this Court’s July 8, 2026 Minute Order, it would still be insufficient as the declaration filed on June 29, 2026 shows reasonable efforts to confirm the client’s address, but sets forth that counsel was still unable to confirm the address for the client. There is no proof of service that the notice was also served on the client by delivering the papers to the clerk of court. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(d); Code Civ. Proc. § 1011(b)(3).)

Defective service deprives the Court of jurisdiction. (Lee v. Placer Title Co. (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 503, 509.)

Accordingly, the instant motion is DROPPED for defective service and for failure to comply with the Court’s order.