DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
24CV008699·sacramento·Civil·Civil
Hearing 12 months agoDROPPED from calendar for defective service

VEGA vs MACOMBER, et al.

Notice and Request for Ruling

Hearing date
Sep 11, 2025
Department
54
Judge
Prevailing
N/A
Next hearing
Sep 25, 2025

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffFrancisco Vega Jr.
DefendantMacomber

Ruling

24CV008699: VEGA vs MACOMBER, et al. 09/11/2025 Hearing on Motion - Other for Ruling Pursuant to Rule of Court Section 4.551(3)(b) in Department 54

Tentative Ruling

The Court has adopted the following procedure for hearings in Department 54 for selfrepresented incarcerated parties.

The clerk shall fax a copy of the tentative ruling to the litigation coordinator on or before the date of the scheduled hearing. The litigation coordinator shall provide the tentative ruling to Plaintiff Francisco Vega Jr. ('Plaintiff') within 48 hours of receiving it.

The hearing date shall automatically be continued two weeks for oral argument. The continuance date will always be an appearance required hearing so that Plaintiff need not request oral argument.

The Litigation Coordinator shall make Plaintiff available, by Zoom telephonically, at 9:00 a.m. on the date of the continued hearing date, which will be September 25, 2025, to participate in oral argument.

To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom ID: 16146506749.

Plaintiff in pro per Francisco Vega Jr.’s motion for “Notice and Request for Ruling” is unopposed but DROPPED from calendar for defective service.

None of the named defendants have appeared in this action, nor has a proof of service of summons been filed as to any party. Moreover, the Court notes that Plaintiff filed a proof of service on June 9, 2025 indicating that he mailed a copy of the “Notice for Request for Ruling” on “Venus D. Johnson, Chief, Deputy Attorney General.” However, there is no evidence that “Venus D. Johnson” is the attorney of record for any of the named defendants. Moreover, Plaintiff has failed to file a proof of service indicating any defendants were properly served with notice of this motion. Defective notice deprives the Court of jurisdiction to consider the motion. (Lee v. Placer Title Co. (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 503, 509, 511.)

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

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:

24CV008699: VEGA vs MACOMBER, et al. 09/11/2025 Hearing on Motion - Other for Ruling Pursuant to Rule of Court Section 4.551(3)(b) in Department 54

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

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