BERMUDEZ vs SN SERVICING CORPORATION, A BUSINESS ENTITY, et al.

23CV000213: BERMUDEZ vs SN SERVICING CORPORATION, A BUSINESS ENTITY, et al. 09/04/2026 Hearing on Motion to Consolidate in Department 17A

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE:

*** If oral arguments are requested or appearances are required, the hearing may be conducted in person or remotely via ZoomGov, which includes telephonic and teleconferencing options. No Court Call appearances will be permitted. If you choose to use Zoom you must use your first and last name on your ZoomGov account so the court can positively identify you. The Department 17A ZoomLink is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16173813009 and the ZoomGov ID is: 161 7381 3009. Appearances via videoconference using the above link are preferred. To appear on ZoomGov by phone, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the ZoomGov ID referenced above, available phone commands include *6 to mute/unmute or *9 to raise your hand. If you experience issues joining your hearing, please contact the clerk in Department 17A at (916) 874- 5487 for assistance.

Please take notice that effective April 13, 2026, the Presiding Judge Law & Motion calendar has been moved to Department 17A at the Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye Courthouse, the Honorable Lawrence G. Brown presiding. The new courthouse is located at 500 G Street, Sacramento, CA 95814.

Hon. Lawrence G. Brown Department 17A 916-874-5487 dept17A@saccourt.ca.gov ***

TENTATIVE RULING:

The Notice of Motion fails to provide notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system for the Law and Motion calendar in the Presiding Judge’s Department. (See Local Rule 1.05(C)-(D).) In pertinent part, Local Rule 1.05 provides that all noticed motions in the Presiding Judge’s Department shall include the following language in the notice:

Pursuant to Local Rule 1.05, the Court will make a tentative ruling on the merits of this matter by 2:00 p.m., two court days before the hearing. The complete text of the tentative ruling may be accessed on the public portal. If the party does not have online access, they may call the dedicated phone number for the department as

23CV000213: BERMUDEZ vs SN SERVICING CORPORATION, A BUSINESS ENTITY, et al. 09/04/2026 Hearing on Motion to Consolidate in Department 17A

referenced in the local telephone directory and receive the tentative ruling. If you do not call the Court and the opposing party by 12:00 p.m. the court day before the hearing, no hearing will be held.

Moving counsel directed to contact opposing counsel and/or self-represented litigants to advise them of Local Rule 1.05, the Court’s tentative ruling procedure for motions noticed in the Presiding Judge’s Department, and the manner to request a hearing. If moving counsel is unable to contact opposing parties prior to hearing, they are ordered to appear at the hearing by Zoom or by telephone.

Plaintiff Omar Bermudez’s (“Plaintiff”) motion to consolidate Bermudez v. SN Servicing Corporation, et al. (Case No. 23CV000213) with unlawful detainer action Kumar v. Bermudez (Case No. 26UD002910) is DROPPED from the calendar as follows.

First, the Ex Parte Application Order permitting this motion to be heard on September 4, 2026, ordered the moving papers to be filed and served pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1005. The moving papers were not filed until August 20, 2026, only 11 court days before the hearing.

Second, the proof of service filed in connection with the moving papers states that Rakesh Kumar, in pro per plaintiff in the unlawful detainer action, was served electronically.

Electronic service on an unrepresented party is ineffective absent express consent. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1010.6, subd. (c); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.251(c)(3)(B).) Express consent to electronic service may be given by either: (1) serving a notice on all parties and filing the notice with the Court, or (2) manifesting affirmative consent through electronic means with the Court or the Court’s electronic filing service provider, and concurrently providing the party’s electronic address with that consent for the purpose of receiving electronic service. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1010.6, subd. (c)(3).) “The act of electronic filing shall not be construed as express consent.” (Ibid.)

“A party . . . may manifest affirmative consent by serving notice of consent to all parties and other persons and either: [¶] (i) Agreeing to the terms of service with an electronic filing service provider, which clearly states that agreement constitutes consent to received electronic service; or [¶] (ii) Filing Consent to Electronic Service and Notice of Electronic Service Address (form EFS-005-CV).” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.251(b)(1)(B).)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV000213: BERMUDEZ vs SN SERVICING CORPORATION, A BUSINESS ENTITY, et al. 09/04/2026 Hearing on Motion to Consolidate in Department 17A

Here, there is no evidence that Mr. Kumar consented to receiving electronic service in the manner provided by Code of Civil Procedure section 1010.6 and California Rules of Court, rule 2.251. Defective service deprives the court of jurisdiction to act. (Lee v. Placer Title Co. (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 503, 509.)

Third, the Court notes that Plaintiff failed to file the notice of motion in all cases to be consolidated as required by California Rules of Court, rule 3.350(a)(1)(C).

For the stated reasons, this matter is dropped from the calendar.

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.)

*** This case has been assigned to Department 17A for hearing. In the event that either party requests a hearing the matter will be heard at 9:30 a.m. in Department 17A. Any party requesting an oral argument must contact the clerk at (916) 874-5487 and opposing counsel or parties in pro per by 12:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing. If a proper request for hearing is not made, this shall become the order of the Court.

Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government Code section 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

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV000213: BERMUDEZ vs SN SERVICING CORPORATION, A BUSINESS ENTITY, et al. 09/04/2026 Hearing on Motion to Consolidate in Department 17A

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. ***