In the Matter of: Maria Luz Altieri-Ortiz

23CV010116: IN THE MATTER OF: MARIA LUZ ALTIERI-ORTIZ 12/10/2025 Hearing on Motion for Sanctions in Department 25

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 Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615 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 25 Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept25 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 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

23CV010116: IN THE MATTER OF: MARIA LUZ ALTIERI-ORTIZ 12/10/2025 Hearing on Motion for Sanctions in Department 25

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.

TENTATIVE RULING

Petitioner Maria Luz Altieri-Ortiz’s (“Petitioner”) Motion for Sanctions Against Respondent Robert Gordon Nielsen’s (“Respondent”) is unopposed but denied.

Petitioner in pro per commenced this action, filed in the Sacramento Superior Court’s general civil division on October 19, 2023. Her case-initiating filing is entitled “Petition to Invalidate Trust Based on Undue Influence; and for Damages for Elder Abuse.” Petitioner has entitled her case-initiating filing as a “petition” as opposed to a civil “complaint.”

On December 5, 2024 this Court granted Respondent’s motion for summary adjudication as to Petitioner’s first cause of action, and on August 5, 2025, this Court granted Respondent’s motion for summary judgment. Judgment was entered in favor of Respondent on November 7, 2025.

Petitioner now moves for sanctions pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 2.30, on the grounds that Respondent has improperly communicated with Petitioner. However, Petitioner has filed no declaration in support of her argument. Nor does Plaintiff’s memorandum of points and authorities set forth any substantive argument as to why sanctions would be appropriate for “for wasting the time, burdening and abusing the courts and plaintiff with continuous filings of the same kind repeating the same information already known to them.” (Mot., p. 1:25-27.) It is unclear from Plaintiff’s moving papers exactly what violations of rule 2.30 Plaintiff is basing the instant motion.

“A party's motion for sanctions must (1) state the applicable rule that has been violated, (2) describe the specific conduct that is alleged to have violated the rule, and (3) identify the attorney, law firm, party, witness, or other person against whom sanctions are sought. The court on its own motion may issue an order to show cause that must (1) state the applicable rule that has been violated, (2) describe the specific conduct that appears to have violated the rule, and (3) direct the attorney, law firm, party, witness, or other person to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed against them for violation of the rule.” (CRC, rule 2.30.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV010116: IN THE MATTER OF: MARIA LUZ ALTIERI-ORTIZ 12/10/2025 Hearing on Motion for Sanctions in Department 25

Based on the moving papers before the Court, the Court is not persuaded that any violation of the rules of court occurred that would warrant sanctions.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions is DENIED.

The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312 or further notice is required.