DOUGLAS vs VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA NORTHERN CALIFORNIA AND NORTHERN NEVADA

23CV010857: DOUGLAS vs VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA NORTHERN CALIFORNIA AND NORTHERN NEVADA 06/26/2025 Hearing on Motion to Vacate Set Aside Default for Leave to Demurrer the Complaint 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-ca-gov.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/courtreporters/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: Plaintiff in pro per Douglas’ “Motion to Vacate Order Granting Defendant’s Motion to Set Aside Default [and] for Leave to [File] Demurrer” is ruled upon as follows.

Factual Background

In July 2016, plaintiff Douglas filed a civil action against defendant Volunteers of

23CV010857: DOUGLAS vs VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA NORTHERN CALIFORNIA AND NORTHERN NEVADA 06/26/2025 Hearing on Motion to Vacate Set Aside Default for Leave to Demurrer the Complaint in Department 53

America Northern California & Northern Nevada’s (“VOA”) and his Second Amended Complaint filed in September 2021 alleged that in 2015 and 2016, plaintiff experienced various forms of battery and other interference with his rights, including restricting his movement around the VOA shelter where plaintiff was residing and improperly attempting to evict him. In April 2022, plaintiff’s 2016 action was dismissed due to his failure to bring the matter to trial within five years and a judgment of dismissal was entered on 4/7/2022.

One and one-half years later, plaintiff Douglas commenced the present action against defendant VOA with a complaint filed on 10/31/2023. On 4/8/2024, defendant VOA filed a motion to set aside the default which had been entered and for leave to file a demurrer to the complaint. Defendant VOA’s motion to set aside was granted on 8/1/2024 and pursuant to the Court’s order, defendant VOA filed its demurrer to the complaint on 8/7/2024. In response to this demurrer, plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint on 8/27/2024.

On 9/10/2024, defendant VOA filed a demurrer to the First Amended Complaint. Concurrently with his opposition to that demurrer, plaintiff filed on 2/14/2025 the present motion which seeks to vacate the Court’s 8/1/2024 order which not only granted defendant VOA’s motion for relief from default but also granted VOA leave to file a demurrer to the then-operative complaint.

According to plaintiff’s moving papers, the Court’s 8/1/2024 order is “void on its face and was in excess of jurisdiction,” thereby warranting relief pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §473(d) [authorizing courts to correct clerical mistakes in judgments or orders and to set aside void judgments or orders]. More specifically, plaintiff contends the 8/1/2024 order was “in violation of the Doctrine of Stare Decisis” and thus, the Court “abused its discretion and exceeded its jurisdiction.”

In opposition, defendant VOA argues solely that the present motion is barred by Code of Civil Procedure §1008 and its 10-jurisdictional limitation period.

Discussion

At the outset, the Court rejects the opposition’s claim that plaintiff’s motion is barred by Code of Civil Procedure §1008 and its 10-jurisdictional limitation period since the moving papers do not purport to seek reconsideration of the 8/1/2024 order. Instead, plaintiff’s motion requests that the 8/1/2024 order be vacated pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §473(d) on the grounds the order is “void on its face and was in excess of jurisdiction.”

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV010857: DOUGLAS vs VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA NORTHERN CALIFORNIA AND NORTHERN NEVADA 06/26/2025 Hearing on Motion to Vacate Set Aside Default for Leave to Demurrer the Complaint in Department 53

Nevertheless, the Court will deny the present motion since plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that 8/1/2024 order is either “void on its face” and/or was “in excess of [the Court’s] jurisdiction.” While the moving papers concede an order or judgment is considered “void on its face” only where the fatal defect is apparent from the court’s records without any consideration of “extrinsic evidence,” plaintiff has failed to identify any defect which renders the 8/1/2024 order “void on its face.” The moving papers here focus on the distinctions between relief available under Code of Civil Procedure §473(b) and (d) as well as §473.5 but as set forth in the 8/1/2024 order, plaintiff did not in connection with the earlier motion for relief from default dispute that this Court also has “inherent authority” under Code of Civil Procedure §128(a)(5) to vacate the default against defendant VOA. Accordingly, plaintiff’s claim that the 8/1/2024 order is “void on its face” must be rejected, especially since that order also established the Court’s authority to grant relief from default under §473(b) and/or (d).

The Court adds that the moving papers also insist “the court’s argument that [it] has inherent authority” under Code of Civil Procedure §128(a)(5) to vacate the default against defendant VOA is “moot because the Court vacated the default on July 10th, 2024” (Mov. Papers, p.13:28-p.14:4) but if this were the case, the present motion to vacate the 8/1/2024 order would similarly be “moot” and plaintiff would not be entitled to any relief here.

Having carefully considered the moving papers, the Court finds that plaintiff’s other primary argument about the 8/1/2024 order being “in excess of [the Court’s] jurisdiction” and/or amounting to an “abuse of discretion” is premised on his faulty characterization of the 8/1/2024 order as “void on its face.” Thus, this ground for relief also falls short.

Finally, although not necessary to the disposition of the present motion to vacate the 8/1/2024 order, the Court notes that even if the 8/1/2024 order did not grant defendant VOA leave to file a demurrer to the then-operative complaint, defendant VOA would still have had the right to advance essentially identical arguments via a motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §438. As such, plaintiff’s claim that he was “prejudiced” by the Court’s permitting defendant VOA to file a demurrer rings hollow.

Disposition

For the reasons explained above, plaintiff in pro per Douglas’ motion to vacate the 8/1/2024 order pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §473(b) is DENIED in its entirety.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV010857: DOUGLAS vs VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA NORTHERN CALIFORNIA AND NORTHERN NEVADA 06/26/2025 Hearing on Motion to Vacate Set Aside Default for Leave to Demurrer the Complaint in Department 53

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc. §1019.5; CRC Rule 3.1312.)