U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION VS GEOARTBONAL CORRAL

September 8, 2026 Law and Motion Calendar PAGE 20 Judge: HONORABLE NANCY L. FINEMAN, Department 04 ________________________________________________________________________

2:00 PM LINE 8 25-CLJ-07808 U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION VS GEOARTBONAL CORRAL

U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION DOUGLAS S WALLACE GEOARTBONAL CORRAL JUSTIN REITER

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff U.S. Bank N.A.’s unopposed Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

As a preliminary matter, the proofs of service of notice of the motion and its supporting papers is defective. Both proofs omit the name of the law firm that is part of Corral’s counsel’s address of record. (Feb. 24, 2026 Amended Notice of Motion, p. 2; Feb. 10, 2026 Notice of Motion, p. 2.)

Service by mail must be “addressed to the person on whom it is to be served, at the office address as last given by that person on any document filed in the cause and served on the party making service by mail[.]” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1013, subd. (a).) “Successful service by mail requires strict compliance with all statutory requirements, including those set forth in section 1013; the failure to comply deprives a court of jurisdiction to act.” (Lee v. Placer Title Co. (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 503, 509.)

Even minor technical defects such as omitting the law firm’s name from the address render service by mail ineffective, as was the case in Triumph Precision Products, Inc. v. Insurance Co. of North America (1979) 91 Cal.App.3d 362. There, because name of the attorney’s law firm was listed in addition to the attorney’s name on the party’s prior court filings, “the correctly addressed envelope should have included the firm name.” (Triumph Precision Products, Inc., supra, at p. 365.) The service by mail was thus ineffective. (Ibid.) Such is the case here.

In addition and just as important, both notices contain incorrect locations for the hearing location. (See Amended Notice of Motion, p. 1; Notice of Motion, p. 1.) The first notice states that the motion will be heard by Department 2 in the Norther Courthouse in South San Francisco and the amended notice has the correct department, Department 4, but states that the hearing will be in the Central Courthouse in San Mateo. Department 4 is located at the Hall of Justice, 400 County Center, Courtroom 4C in Redwood City, California. (See (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1110 [the notice “must specify” the location of the hearing].)

A “court lacks jurisdiction to rule on a motion that has not been properly noticed for hearing on the date in question.” (Diaz v. Professional Community Management, Inc. (2017) 16 Cal.App.5th 1190, 1204–1205.) Accordingly, because the proofs of service are defective and there is otherwise no

September 8, 2026 Law and Motion Calendar PAGE 21 Judge: HONORABLE NANCY L. FINEMAN, Department 04 ________________________________________________________________________ indication that Corral has received proper notice of the motion, the motion is denied without prejudice to a properly noticed and served renewed motion.

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the court without the need for a formal order.