BOE vs DEACON CORP.

24CV005025: BOE vs DEACON CORP. 01/08/2026 Hearing on Motion for Reconsideration 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 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/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

24CV005025: BOE vs DEACON CORP. 01/08/2026 Hearing on Motion for Reconsideration in Department 53

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: Self-represented Plaintiff John Boe’s motion for reconsideration is ruled upon as set forth below.

On October 20, 2025, this Court issued a tentative ruling conditionally granting Defendant Deacon Builders, LLC’s motion to deem matters admitted “unless Plaintiff serve[d], “before the hearing on the motion,” proposed responses to the subject request for admissions served on May 21, 2025, that are in substantial compliance with Code of Civil Procedure § 2033.220. (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280(c).) [emphasis in original].” The Court also imposed mandatory monetary sanctions against Plaintiff in the amount of $800.

After hearing oral argument on October 21, 2025, the Court took the matter under submission. On October 22, 2025, the Court issued a ruling on submitted matter affirming the tentative ruling and deferring a ruling on whether Plaintiff’s October 21, 2025 “Verified Reply In-Equity by and through a Primordial Proclamation – Maintaining Original Jurisdiction by Special Visitation (Non- Adversarial, In Peace)” which was filed after the Court posted the tentative ruling constituted a code-compliant response to avoid Defendant’s admissions being deemed admitted.

On October 29, 2025, Plaintiff filed a document titled “Omnibus Motion seeking Reconsideration as well as to UACATE(SIC)/CORRECT the MINUTE ORDER of the 21st OF OCTOBER 21, 2025, A.D., (Maintaining Original Jurisdiction by Special Uisitation (sic) as Non-Adversarial, In Peace).” On November 13, 2025, Plaintiff filed a “Solemn Proclamation ISO Omnibus Motion seeking Reconsideration.” As best the Court can tell, Plaintiff requests that the Court correct an error in the October 22, 2025, minute order, reconsider the issue of sanctions, and to find that his Verified Reply filed on October 21, 2025 was a proposed response in substantial compliance with CCP § 2033.220.

Alleged Error in October 22, 2025 Minute Order

Plaintiff first appears to request that the Court “correct” the October 22, 2025 minute order pursuant to CCP § 473(d). “The court may, upon motion of the injured party, or its own motion, correct clerical mistakes in its judgment or orders as entered, so as to conform to the judgment or order directed, and may, on motion of either party after notice to the other party, set aside any void judgment or order.” (CCP § 473(d).) According to Plaintiff, the minute order incorrectly states that he did not “include any

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV005025: BOE vs DEACON CORP. 01/08/2026 Hearing on Motion for Reconsideration in Department 53

clear and verified statement of denial or admission.” Plaintiff claims that the Verified Reply filed on October 21, 2025 (after the Court posted the tentative ruling) was such a denial. However, CCP § 473(d) only permits correction of clerical errors. “The test which distinguishes clerical error from possible judicial error is simply whether the challenged portion of the judgment was entered inadvertently (which is clerical error) versus advertently (which might be judicial error, but is not clerical error). (Tokio Marine & Fire Ins.Corp. v.

Western Pacific Roofing Corp. (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 110, 117.) “Unless the challenged portion of the judgment was entered inadvertently, it cannot be changed postjudgment under the guise of correction of clerical error.” (Id.) “If the court misconstrued the evidence before it, or misapplied the law applicable to the facts disclosed by the evidence, or was even misled by counsel, such an error was in no sense a clerical error ” (Lankton v. Superior Court (1936) 5 Cal.2d 694, 696.) Here, Plaintiff essentially argues that the Court misconstrued the evidence when it issued its order because he had filed the Verified Reply.

Even if this were true (which it is not), such issue would be a judicial error and not a clerical error. As a result, Plaintiff cannot seek relief pursuant to CCP § 473(d) since the latter only permits correction of clerical errors. In any event, there is no error in the October 22, 2025 Minute Order. At the time that the Court posted the tentative ruling (i.e., the court day prior to the October 21, 2025 hearing pursuant to Local Rule 1.06), there was no timely filed evidence of any document served by Plaintiff which arguably constituted a “clear and verified statement of denial or admission.” Plaintiff’s so-called Verified Reply was filed the day after the Court posted its tentative ruling, i.e., on October 21, 2025.

Further, as seen from the Court’s October 22, 2025 Ruling on Submitted Matter, the Court recognized that the Verified Reply was filed and deferred ruling on whether that document was a proposed response in substantial compliance with CCP § 2033.220. Thus, to the extent that Plaintiff moves to have the Court correct the October 22, 2025 order based upon clerical error, the motion is denied.

Reconsideration

Plaintiff next seeks to have the Court reconsider the award of sanctions in the October 22, 2025, order. Under Code of Civil Procedure § 1008(a), “[w]hen an application for an order has been made to a judge, or to a court, and refused in whole or in part, or granted, or granted conditionally, or on terms, any party affected by the order may, within 10 days after service upon the party of written notice of entry of the order and based upon new or different facts, circumstances, or law, make application to the same judge or court that made the order, to reconsider the matter and modify, amend, or revoke the prior order.

The party making the application shall state by affidavit what application was made before, when and to what judge, what order or decisions were made, and what new or different facts, circumstances, or law are claimed to be shown.” (CCP § 1008(a).) Plaintiff has failed to show that there are any new facts, circumstances or law which would support a motion for reconsideration. Indeed, Plaintiff

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV005025: BOE vs DEACON CORP. 01/08/2026 Hearing on Motion for Reconsideration in Department 53

argues that the Court should reconsider sanctions because he filed the Verified Reply on October 21, 2025 before the hearing on Defendant’s motion. The Court addressed the Verified Reply in the October 22, 2025 order and thus the motion is premised on information that was already before the Court when it issued the order for which Plaintiff seeks reconsideration.

At base, Plaintiff disagrees with the Court’s ruling awarding Defendant $800 in sanctions. This is not a legally cognizable basis for reconsideration as “in almost all instances, the losing party will believe that the trial court’s ‘different’ interpretation of the law or facts was erroneous.” (Gilberd v. AC Transit (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 1494, 1500.) A court “acts in excess of jurisdiction when it grants a motion to reconsider that is not based upon ‘new or different facts, circumstances, or law.’” (Id.) The Court has no jurisdiction to grant the request for reconsideration.

Moreover, Plaintiff’s request for reconsideration is based on a faulty premise. The fact that Plaintiff filed the Verified Reply before the October 21, 2025 hearing has no bearing on the imposition of sanctions. As the Court stated in the October 22, 2025, order, monetary sanctions pursuant to CCP § 2033.280(c) are mandatory against a party “‘whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion.’ The Court has no discretion in this regard, for example, like it does in connection with motions to compel responses to interrogatories, where it can decline to impose sanctions where it would be unjust.” (October 22, 2025 Minute Order p. 2.) Thus, the mere fact that Plaintiff filed and served his Verified Reply after the motion had been filed operates as no valid basis to avoid the mandatory sanctions.

Plaintiff’s request to have the Court reconsider the award of sanctions is denied.

Whether the Verified Reply substantially complied with CCP § 2033.220

Lastly, Plaintiff argues that the Verified Reply filed on October 21, 2025 substantially complied with CCP § 2033.220 such that Defendant’s requests for admission are not deemed admitted.

However, the Court declines to issue any ruling in this regard at this time for the same reasons stated in its prior order. Indeed, in the October 22, 2025 order, the Court deferred ruling on the Verified Reply “until such time that it is relevant for the Court to determine such as if and when any party attempts to establish and rely upon deemed admissions.” (October 22, 2025 Minute Order p. 4 (emphasis added).) Plaintiff, as the party against whom the deemed admissions order was sought, is not by this motion seeking to “establish and rely upon deemed admissions” but instead, is seeking to avoid any deemed admissions. Such is not the circumstance specifically indicated by the Court in its October 22, 2025 order.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV005025: BOE vs DEACON CORP. 01/08/2026 Hearing on Motion for Reconsideration in Department 53

The Court will note once again that it will address the matter of substantial compliance “if and when any party attempts to establish and rely upon deemed admissions.” Until such time, there remains no necessity for the Court to evaluate the issue of substantial compliance.

In summary, the motion is denied to the extent that Plaintiff requested the Court correct an error in the October 22, 2025 order and requested that the Court reconsider the award of sanctions in the October 22, 2025 order. The issue of whether the Verified Reply substantially complied with CCP § 2033.220 will remain deferred to a later and relevant time.

The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC rule 3.1312 or other notice is required.