ARORA SOLUTIONS, LLC vs DE LIMA

23CV012694: ARORA SOLUTIONS, LLC vs DE LIMA 09/09/2026 Hearing on Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Judgment (CCP 473) in Department 8C

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that any oral arguments regarding this tentative ruling will be heard at 1:30 p.m. in Department 8C in the Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye Courthouse at 500 G Street, Sacramento, CA, the Hon. Richard C. Miadich presiding.

Any party who wishes to contest the tentative ruling below must:

(1) request a hearing by calling the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line for Department 8C at (916) 874-8380, by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the noticed hearing date, and leave a voicemail 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 they have notified the opposing party of their intention to appear; and

(2) advise the opposing party of the location and time of hearing pursuant to Local Rule 1.06.

If a hearing is not requested by 4:00 p.m. on the Court day before the noticed hearing date, the tentative ruling will become the final order of the Court.

If a hearing is requested, the Court prefers in-person attendance by the parties. However, parties may appear by Zoom unless the Court specifically orders in-person attendance. Parties choosing to appear by Zoom are reminded, however, that a Zoom appearance is still a formal appearance before the Court. Parties appearing via Zoom should do so from a quiet location, free from undue distractions, and wear attire suitable for an in-person court appearance.

The parties may join the Zoom session for hearing on the tentative ruling by audio and/or video through the following link:

https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16039062174

SIP Address:

16039062174@sip.zoomgov.com

(833) 568-8864

23CV012694: ARORA SOLUTIONS, LLC vs DE LIMA 09/09/2026 Hearing on Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Judgment (CCP 473) in Department 8C

ID: 16039062174

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

TENTATIVE RULING

***NOTICE: EFFECTIVE APRIL 13, 2026, THIS DEPARTMENT HAS MOVED TO THE TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE COURTHOUSE LOCATED AT 500 G STREET SACRAMENTO, CA. ALL MOTIONS NOTICED FOR DEPARTMENT 28 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 8C OF THE NEW COURTHOUSE. ALL PAPERS FOR THIS DEPARTMENT MUST BE FILED AT THIS NEW LOCATION AND WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED AT THE HALL OF JUSTICE. ALL HEARINGS WILL TAKE PLACE AT THIS NEW LOCATION***

Defendant in pro per Matt DeLima’s (“Defendant”) motion to vacate judgment is ruled upon as follows.

The notice of motion does not provide notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system, as required by Local Rule 1.06. Defendant is directed to contact opposing counsel and advise of Local Rule 1.06 and the Court’s tentative ruling procedure and the manner to request a hearing. If Defendant is unable to contact opposing counsel prior to the hearing, Defendant is ordered to appear at the hearing by Zoom or in person.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV012694: ARORA SOLUTIONS, LLC vs DE LIMA 09/09/2026 Hearing on Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Judgment (CCP 473) in Department 8C

Background

Plaintiff Arora Solutions, LLC filed this action on December 4, 2023 alleging breach of a loan agreement. On June 24, 2024, Plaintiff filed a proof of service of summons stating that Defendant was personally served at a Peet’s Coffee in Vacaville on June 14, 2024. On July 15, 2024, Defendant filed an Answer with his address listed in the caption as 148 E. Prospect Ave, Danville, CA 94526. On December 4, 2024, Plaintiff filed motions to compel responses to written discovery and to deem matters admitted.

Both the discovery and the motions were served on Defendant via mail to the Danville address. The motions were unopposed and were granted on April 17, 2025. On June 26, 2025, Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment. The motion was served on Defendant via overnight delivery to the Danville address. The motion was unopposed and was granted on September 22, 2025. Thereafter, judgment was entered in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant on October 31, 2025 in the amount of $153,720.64. Notice of entry of the judgment was served on Defendant via mail to the Danville address on November 10, 2025.

On January 23, 2026, an amended judgment was entered to reflect an award of costs for Plaintiff. Notice of entry of the amended judgment was served on Defendant via mail to the Danville address on February 4, 2026.

On June 23, 2026, Defendant filed the present motion. The address listed in the caption of the moving papers is 3678 Lake Tahoe Blvd, South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150. Defendant had not filed a notice of change of address between the filing of his Answer and the filing of this motion. Defendant ultimately filed a notice of change of address on August 14, 2026 after the Court ordered him to do so on August 10, 2026. The notice identifies Defendant’s new address as 1925 46th Ave, Apt. 85, Capitola, CA 95010.

Despite listing the Danville address in the caption of his Answer, Defendant contends in his motion that he did not receive notice of any matters in this case after being served with the Complaint. Defendant asserts that the Danville address was a business address and not Defendant’s residence. Defendant also asserts that before judgment was entered in this action, he spoke with Plaintiff about the case and informed Plaintiff that he had been residing in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania for approximately four years. Thus, Defendant argues that he was deprived of an opportunity to defend himself in this action.

Discussion

Defendant first cites Code of Civil Procedure section 473.5, which provides in part: “When service of a summons has not resulted in actual notice to a party in time to defend the action and a default or default judgment has been entered against the party in the action, the party may serve and file a notice of motion to set aside the default or default judgment and for leave to defend the

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV012694: ARORA SOLUTIONS, LLC vs DE LIMA 09/09/2026 Hearing on Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Judgment (CCP 473) in Department 8C

action.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 473.5(a).) This statute does not apply here, as Defendant received actual notice of this lawsuit as evidenced by his filing of an Answer, and no default or default judgment was entered. (See Fidelity Creditor Service, Inc. v. Browne (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 195, 203.)

Defendant also cites Code of Civil Procedure section 473(d), which provides in part, “The court may, on motion of either party after notice to the other party, set aside any void judgment or order.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 473(d).) A judgment entered without a noticed hearing is void. (Lovato v. Santa Fe Internat. Corp. (1984) 151 Cal.App.3d 549, 553 [default judgment entered after defendant’s answer stricken as a terminating sanction for failure to respond to discovery void because defendant did not have actual or constructive notice of the discovery or the discovery motions].)

The Court is not persuaded that Defendant lacked actual or constructive notice of the post-Complaint proceedings in this matter. A party must include his “residence address or mailing address (if different)” on the first page of each paper filed with the Court in an action. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.111(1).) “An attorney or self-represented party whose mailing address, telephone number, fax number, or e-mail address (if it was provided under rule 2.111(1)) changes while an action is pending must serve on all parties and file a written notice of the change.” (Cal.

Rules of Court, rule 2.200.) Here, Defendant listed the Danville address in the caption of his Answer. Plaintiff served the written discovery, the discovery motions, the motion for summary judgment, and notice of entry of the judgment and the amended judgment via mail to the Danville address. Plaintiff did not file a notice of change of address until August 14, 2026. “[T]he ‘person to be served’ [via mail under Code of Civil Procedure section 1013] has the burden of notifying the court of any change of address, and failure so to do does not enable him to claim improper notice.” (Bethlahmy v.

Customcraft Industries, Inc. (1961) 192 Cal.App.2d 308, 310.) If Defendant resided and received mail at an address in Philadelphia, he should have listed his Philadelphia address on his Answer or filed a notice of change of address much sooner. (See Whitehead v. Habig (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 896, 903 [service of papers at defendants’ address of record valid where defendants did not file notice of change of address].)

Finally, Defendant contends that the judgment should be vacated due to extrinsic fraud on the basis that Plaintiffs knew Defendant lived in Philadelphia. Equitable relief through extrinsic fraud is generally not available to a party whose failure to respond to proceedings in a lawsuit is the result of that party’s own negligence, including failing to file a notice of change of address. (Kramer v. Traditional Escrow, Inc. (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 13, 32.) Further, the evidence of fraud submitted by Defendant is not persuasive or credible.

Defendant contends that he resided in Philadelphia for four years and that he told Plaintiff this, but he provides no specific facts to support these claims. He does not identify the specific four-year timeframe that he lived in Philadelphia or provide a specific address. He does not state when he told Plaintiff he lived in Philadelphia, how this was communicated, or to whom he communicated. Nor has Defendant submitted any corroborating evidence, such as mail addressed to Defendant in Philadelphia, a

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV012694: ARORA SOLUTIONS, LLC vs DE LIMA 09/09/2026 Hearing on Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Judgment (CCP 473) in Department 8C

residential lease listing Plaintiff as a tenant in Philadelphia, or testimony from a third party stating that Defendant resided in Philadelphia.

Accordingly, Defendant’s motion is DENIED.

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.)