Jeffery Scott Stephens vs. Sutter Valley Hospitals

34-2020-00289599-CU-PO-GDS: Jeffery Scott Stephens vs. Sutter Valley Hospitals 03/27/2025 Hearing on Motion - Other to Set Aside Entry of Default 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

34-2020-00289599-CU-PO-GDS: Jeffery Scott Stephens vs. Sutter Valley Hospitals 03/27/2025 Hearing on Motion - Other to Set Aside Entry of Default in Department 53

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

TENTATIVE RULING: Cross-Defendant American River Caulking, Inc.’s (“ARC”) motion to set aside entry of default is denied.

By way of the instant motion, ARC seeks to set aside the default entered on Cross-Complainant Roseville Medical Office Building Associates’ (“Roseville”) cross-complaint. The default was entered on September 6, 2023. The instant motion is based solely on CCP § 473. ARC moves for relief on the basis that the default was entered as a result of mistake and/or excusable neglect. (Not. 1:26-28.)

The Court denied a previous motion by ARC on January 28, 2025, which was brought pursuant to CCP §§ 473 and 473.5. The Court denied the motion to the extent it was premised on CCP § 473 on the grounds that ARC failed to include a proposed answer, failed to show mistake/excusable neglect, and also failed to address the six-month deadline. The motion was denied without prejudice.

Here, the motion made pursuant to CCP § 473(b) must be denied as it is untimely. Pursuant to CCP § 473(b), an application for relief “shall be made within a reasonable time, in no case exceeding six months, after the judgment, dismissal, order, or proceeding was taken.” (CCP § 473(b).) “This six-month time limitation is jurisdictional; the court has no power to grant relief under section 473 once the time has lapsed.” (Austin v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist. (2016) 244 Cal. App. 4th 918, 928.)

Default was entered on September 6, 2023, more than 18 months ago and well after the sixmonth deadline. ARC expressly “acknowledges that this motion is untimely per Code of Civil Procedure 473(b)” but argues that any delay was due to mistake or excusable neglect. (Mot. 7:3- 4.) However, even accepting ARC’s assertion that the delay in seeking relief was due to mistake or excusable neglect, there is no dispute that the instant motion only sought relief pursuant to CCP § 473(b) and that the six-month deadline has long passed. As set forth above, the Court has no power to grant relief under CCP § 473(b) once the six-month deadline has run and ARC cites no authority to the contrary. Rather, the authority cited by ARC deals with cases where the motion pursuant to CCP § 473(b) was timely made and the Court’s discretion to grant relief.

ARC also argues that Roseville will not be prejudiced if the default is set aside. Again, even if this is true, and despite the fact that there is a policy to hear cases on their merits, this Court has no power to grant relief pursuant to CCP § 473(b) under the circumstances.

While ARC indicates in reply that it filed an answer to another party’s cross-complaint on March 20, 2025, that has no relevance with respect to the instant motion seeking to set aside ARC’s

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2020-00289599-CU-PO-GDS: Jeffery Scott Stephens vs. Sutter Valley Hospitals 03/27/2025 Hearing on Motion - Other to Set Aside Entry of Default in Department 53

default as to Roseville’s cross-complaint.

As a result, the motion for relief pursuant to CCP § 473(b) is denied as untimely.

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