MONTGOMERY vs COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al.

26CV010199: MONTGOMERY vs COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al. 09/02/2026 Hearing on Motion to be Relieved as Counsel in Department 8D

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 Department 8D Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-7719 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 8D Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16113421868 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 1342 1868. 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 on the Court Reporter Services webpage available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://saccourt.ca.gov/general-information/court-reporter-services-transcripts. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://saccourt.ca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/227/639084034465370000.

A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be

26CV010199: MONTGOMERY vs COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al. 09/02/2026 Hearing on Motion to be Relieved as Counsel in Department 8D

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.

*** 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. ***

TENTATIVE RULING

The motion of Counsel Jason A. Rose (“Counsel”) to be relieved as counsel for plaintiff Jamie Montgomery (“Client”) is DROPPED for defective service. On July 27, 2026, the Court granted Counsel’s ex parte application shortening time to hear the instant motion to be relieved as counsel. Counsel filed an amended Notice of Motion and Declaration on July 27, 2026, in accordance with the deadline set forth in the Court’s order.

Counsel has filed a declaration in support of the motion stating that Counsel has had difficulties communicating with Client since the beginning of the case, and that Counsel has been unable to have meaningful communication with Client since May 14, 2026. (Rose Amended Decl., ¶ 2.) Counsel has made multiple good faith attempts to contact and communicate with Client, including by email, telephone, text message, and U.S. mail. (Ibid.)

The motion and all accompanying papers must be served on the client pursuant to the requirements of California Rules of Court, rule 3.1362(d).

Counsel has filed a Proof of Electronic Service on Client. Electronic service on an unrepresented party is only valid if that party has consented to this manner of service. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1010.6, subd. (c); see Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.253(b)(3).) There is no evidence before the Court indicating that Client has agreed to accept electronic service.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

26CV010199: MONTGOMERY vs COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al. 09/02/2026 Hearing on Motion to be Relieved as Counsel in Department 8D

Counsel has also filed a Proof of Service indicating that Client was served by mail. Counsel fails to specify in his Amended Declaration whether he personally served Client or served her by mail at her last known address (see Rose Amended Decl., ¶ 3(a)), but otherwise attests to serving Client by mail at Client’s last known address, which he confirmed by “[e]lectronic service to [Client] via her current electronic service address.” However, it is unclear if this refers to Counsel’s attempted electronic service on Client or the Proof of Service at the following address:

c/o Michael Zefarski 2100 Harvard Ave., Room 308 Sacramento, CA 95815

The Court notes that this is further confused by the Proposed Order, which marks the box that “Attorney has personally served the client with papers in support of this motion.” (emphasis added.) None of the proofs of service demonstrate personal service on Client.

Taken together, Counsel’s Amended Declaration and the corresponding Proofs of Service do not sufficiently demonstrate that the papers in support of this motion have been served via mail on Client at her last known mailing address, or that Counsel has confirmed that the last-known mailing address is current. Defective service deprives the court of jurisdiction to act. (Lee v. Placer Title Co. (1994) 28Cal.App.4th 503, 509.) Accordingly, the motion is DROPPED.

Likewise, the Court would otherwise decline to sign the proposed order submitted with the moving papers, wherein Counsel proposes that Client was personally served with papers in support of this motion. As discussed, Counsel’s Amended Declaration and corresponding Proofs of Service indicate only electronic and mail service attempts. Should Counsel move again to be relived, Counsel shall prepare an updated order with the correct information for the Court’s signature.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1019.5; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1312.)