JPMorgan Chase Bank NA v. Pluciennik, Tiffany N

PLACER COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL LAW AND MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS TUESDAY, JUNE 2, 2026

These are the tentative rulings for civil law and motion matters set at 8:30 a.m. on Tuesday, June 2, 2026. The tentative ruling will be the court’s final ruling unless notice of appearance and request for oral argument are given to all parties and the court by 4:00 p.m., Monday, June 1, 2026. Notice of request for oral argument to the court must be made by calling (916) 408-6481. Requests for oral argument made by any other method will not be accepted. Prevailing parties are required to submit orders after hearing to the court within 10 court days of the scheduled hearing date, and after approval as to form by opposing counsel. Court reporters are not provided by the court. Parties may provide a court reporter at their own expense.

Except as otherwise noted, these tentative rulings are issued by the HONORABLE TRISHA J. HIRASHIMA and if oral argument is requested, it will be heard at 8:30 a.m. in Department 42, located at 10820 Justice Center Drive, Roseville, California 95678.

PLEASE NOTE: REMOTE APPEARANCES ARE STRONGLY ENCOURAGED FOR ALL CIVIL LAW AND MOTION MATTERS. (Local Rule 10.24.) More information is available at the court’s website: www.placer.courts.ca.gov.

1. M-CV-0081949 Brewer Road Partners v. Storer, Jeremiah M

The motion to vacate or set aside void judgment is continued to June 23, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 42 to be heard by the Honorable Colleen M. Nichols.

2. M-CV-0087179 JPMorgan Chase Bank NA v. Pluciennik, Tiffany N

Motion to Enforce Settlement

Plaintiff moves to enforce the settlement agreement filed on October 10, 2024 pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6. The notice of motion shows a hearing date of both June 2, 2026 (in the first paragraph of the body of the notice of motion) and June 21, 2026 (in the case caption on the same page). The proof of service of motion filed April 17, 2026 is not signed by the declarant nor does it list a date of service. Moreover, there is no evidence in the court’s file this motion was served on defendant’s counsel of record, the Fullman Firm, PC. Based on these procedural deficiencies, the motion is denied without prejudice.

1