Motion to Deem Request for Admissions Admitted
24CV007808: SANDFORD vs TERRA NOVA COUNSELING DDP, et al. 09/16/2025 Hearing on Motion to Deem Request for Admissions Admitted in Department 53
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 53/54 Zoom Link is https://saccourt-cagov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept53.54 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 4650 6749. 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.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
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 Courts 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
24CV007808: SANDFORD vs TERRA NOVA COUNSELING DDP, et al. 09/16/2025 Hearing on Motion to Deem Request for Admissions Admitted in Department 53
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 Reporters Office and an official reporter will be provided.
TENTATIVE RULING: Self-represented Plaintiff James Sandfords unopposed motion to compel responses and to deem matters admitted is DROPPED for defective service.
While the Proof of Personal Service related to this motion states that personal service on Defendants counsel was made on 9/27/25, the Court presumes this is an erroneous reference and was meant to refer to 8/27/25 instead. In any event, however, service of the motion by personal service on August 27, 2025, for a September 16, 2025 hearing is defective as a matter of law as such notice only provided 13 Court days notice, and not the minimum 16 Court days notice required for personal service by CCP § 1005(b). (September 1, 2025 was a Court holiday) (See CCP § 12c [computing days by counting backwards from the hearing date].). To the extent the Proof of Personal Service was intended to refer to any other date of service, it is erroneous and defective on its face.
Defective service deprives the court of jurisdiction. (Lee v. Placer Title Co. (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 503, 509.) Thus, this reserved hearing is dropped for lack of jursidiction.
The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312 or further notice is required.