VINCEPT SAPORITO VS. COBRA VAN LINES, LLC

September 4, 2026 Dept. 9 Civil Tentative Rulings

16. 26CV2005 VINCEPT SAPORITO VS. COBRA VAN LINES, LLC ARBITRATION AWARD

The Notice does not comply with Local Rules 7.10.05. Repeated violations will be grounds for sanctions pursuant to Local Rule 7.12.13.

Petitioners, Vincent Saporito and Kathleen Saporito (collectively “Petitioners”), petition the Court for an order confirming the arbitrator’s award. Petitioners assert that a Contract for Arbitration Services (the “Contract”) was entered into on March 27, 2026; however, the Contract does not contain Respondent’s signature as required. Petitioner’s declaration confirms that Respondent did not sign the Contract or participate in arbitration.

The Final Arbitration Award was issued on May 11, 2026 (the “Arbitration Award”). The Arbitration award indicates that Respondent did not pay the administrative fee, submit a brief or evidence, and did not otherwise participate in the arbitration. Nevertheless, the arbitration proceeded on the timely-filed record.

The Arbitration Award provides, in part, as follows: It is hereby ordered that Respondent Cobra Van Lines, LLC shall pay $3,900.91 to Petitioners Vincent Saporito and Kathleen Saporito within forty-five (45) days of the date of this Final Arbitration Agreement. Failure to timely pay permits Petitioners to pursue all remedies at law or equity, including entry of judgment on this Award and recovery of reasonable costs and attorney’s fees incurred in enforcement.

Any party to an arbitration in which an award has been made may petition the court to confirm, correct or vacate the award. The petition shall name as respondents all parties to the arbitration and may name as respondents any other persons bound by the arbitration award. Code Civil Procedure § 1285.

Code of Civil Procedure § 1285.4 requires that a petition shall: (a) Set forth the substance of or have attached a copy of the agreement to arbitrate unless the petitioner denies the existence of such an agreement. (b) Set forth the names of the arbitrators. (c) Set forth or have attached a copy of the award and the written opinion of the arbitrators, if any.

The Court does not find there is a valid agreement to arbitrate, as Respondents did not enter into the agreement evidenced by the lack of signature. The Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award is denied. //

September 4, 2026 Dept. 9 Civil Tentative Rulings

TENTATIVE RULING #16: PETITION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARD IS DENIED. NO HEARING ON THIS MATTER WILL BE HELD UNLESS A REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT IS TRANSMITTED ELECTRONICALLY THROUGH THE COURT’S WEBSITE OR BY TELEPHONE TO THE COURT AT (530) 621-6551 BY 4:00 P.M. ON THE DAY THE TENTATIVE RULING IS ISSUED. CAL. RULE CT. 3.1308; LOCAL RULE 8.05.07; SEE ALSO LEWIS V. SUPERIOR COURT, 19 CAL.4TH 1232, 1247 (1999).

NOTICE TO ALL PARTIES OF A REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT AND THE GROUNDS UPON WHICH ARGUMENT IS BEING REQUESTED MUST BE MADE BY TELEPHONE OR IN PERSON BY 4:00 P.M. ON THE DAY THE TENTATIVE RULING IS ISSUED. CAL. RULE CT. 3.1308; EL DORADO COUNTY LOCAL RULE 8.05.07. PROOF OF SERVICE OF SAID NOTICE MUST BE FILED PRIOR TO OR AT THE HEARING.

LONG CAUSE HEARINGS MUST BE REQUESTED BY 4:00 P.M. ON THE DAY THE TENTATIVE RULING IS ISSUED AND THE PARTIES ARE TO PROVIDE THE COURT WITH THREE MUTUALLY AGREEABLE DATES ON FRIDAY AFTERNOONS AT 2:30 P.M. LONG CAUSE ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTS WILL BE SET FOR HEARING ON ONE OF THE THREE MUTUALLY AGREEABLE DATES ON FRIDAY AFTERNOONS AT 2:30 P.M. THE COURT WILL ADVISE THE PARTIES OF THE LONG CAUSE HEARING DATE AND TIME BY 5:00 P.M. ON THE DAY THE TENTATIVE RULING IS ISSUED. PARTIES MAY PERSONALLY APPEAR AT THE HEARING.

September 4, 2026 Dept. 9 Civil Tentative Rulings

17. PC20200622 BASSEM MANSOUR V. JOHN DAVID STONE JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

The Notice does not comply with Local Rule 7.10.05. Repeated violations will be grounds for sanctions pursuant to Local Rule 7.12.13.

On May 7, 2026, Defendant/Cross-Complainant, N.L. Christensen Enterprises, Inc. dba Folsom Lake Marina (“Defendant”), filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. On June 12, 2026, Plaintiff, Baseem Mansour (“Plaintiff”), filed an Opposition. On June 15, 2026, Defendant, John David Stone (“Defendant Stone”), filed an Opposition. Defendant filed a Reply to Defendant Stone’s Opposition and a Reply to Plaintiff’s Opposition on June 16, 2026.

JUDICIAL NOTICE

Defendant asks the Court to take judicial notice of the following: 1) Defendant State of California Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts in Support of Defendant State of California’s Motion for Summary Judgment; and 2) Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint.

Judicial notice is a mechanism which allows the Court to take into consideration matters which are presumed to be indisputably true. California Evidence Code Sections 451, 452, and 453 govern the circumstances in which judicial notice of a matter may be taken. While Section 451 provides a comprehensive list of matters that must be judicially noticed, Section 452 sets forth matters which may be judicially noticed, including “[r]ecords of (1) any court of this state or (2) any court of record of the United States or of any state of the United States.”

Section 452 provides that the court “may” take judicial notice of the matters listed therein, while Section 453 provides a caveat that the court “shall” take judicial notice of any matter “specified in Section 452 if a party requests it and: (a) Gives each adverse party sufficient notice of the request...to enable such adverse party to prepare to meet the request; and (b) Furnishes the court with sufficient information to enable it to take judicial notice of the matter.” Cal. Evid. Code § 453.

While the requests made by Defendant fall within the purview of Section 452, matters which may be judicially noticed, the Court does find that Defendant provided Plaintiff, co- Defendants and the Court sufficient notice of the request and copies of the documents requested to be noticed. As such, Defendant has satisfied the requirements of Evidence Code § 453 and the request for judicial notice is granted.

JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

Background

On September 14, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) alleging the following causes of action: 1) Negligence (Motor Vehicle) (Defendant Stone); 2) Dangerous

38