Jack Kellum vs. Sacramento Manor Apartments

34-2021-00303600-CU-PO-GDS: Jack Kellum vs. Sacramento Manor Apartments 04/24/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other Motion to Specially Set Pursuant to 5-year Statute in Department 17A

Tentative Ruling

The Sacramento Superior Court is transitioning operations from the Gordon D. Schaber and Hall of Justice buildings to the new Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye Courthouse through a phased move plan beginning on April 13, 2026. Visit the court’s website at www.saccourt.ca.gov for the most current and up to date information regarding the transition. The physical and mailing address of the new downtown courthouse is:

Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye Courthouse 500 G Street Sacramento, CA 95814

Please take notice, effective April 13, 2026, the Presiding Judge Law & Motion calendar will be moved from Department 47 at the Gordon D. Schaber Courthouse to Department 17A at the Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye Courthouse, the Honorable Lawrence G. Brown presiding. All hearings currently scheduled or reserved after the effective date shall remain in place and will be heard in Department 17A.

Hon. Lawrence G. Brown Department 17A 916-874-5487 dept17A@saccourt.ca.gov

NOTICE: If oral arguments are requested or appearances are required, the hearing may be conducted in person or remotely via ZoomGov [which includes telephonic and teleconferencing options]. No Court Call appearances will be permitted. If you choose to use Zoom you must use your first and last name on your ZoomGov account so the court can positively identify you. The Department 17A ZoomLink is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16173813009 and the ZoomGov ID is: 161 7381 3009. Appearances via videoconference using the above link are preferred. To appear on ZoomGov by phone, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the ZoomGov ID referenced above, available phone commands include *6 to mute/unmute or *9 to raise your hand. If you experience issues joining your hearing, please contact the clerk in Department 17A at (916) 874-5487 for assistance.

34-2021-00303600-CU-PO-GDS: Jack Kellum vs. Sacramento Manor Apartments 04/24/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other Motion to Specially Set Pursuant to 5-year Statute in Department 17A

The motion of Plaintiff Jack Kellum (“Plaintiff”) to specially set trial or alternatively, to confirm the extension of the deadline to commence trial is ruled on as follows.

Plaintiff commenced this action on February 18, 2021. Trial is currently scheduled for December 28, 2026. Plaintiff moves to advance trial to a date before July 1, 2026 to avoid mandatory dismissal based on the deadline to commence trial under Code of Civil Procedure § 583.310. Alternatively, Plaintiff requests the Court confirm the deadline to commence trial has been tolled to at least December 31, 2026 so that trial may proceed as currently scheduled. Defendant Sacramento Manor, Inc. (“Sacramento Manor”) opposes the motion.

Plaintiff provides authority that a trial date before July 1, 2026 would allow sufficient time to provide Sacramento Manor the required notice for trial under Code of Civil Procedure § 594(b). However, the pertinent question is not whether trial could be set before July 1, 2026, but whether there is sufficient cause to set such a trial. The Court may grant a motion to advance trial “only upon an affirmative showing by the moving party of good cause based on a declaration served and filed with the motion or application.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1335(b).) Plaintiff contends there is good cause to advance trial because the action was delayed due to the efforts of defendants to evade service.

Upon review of the record, it appears the Court repeatedly notified Plaintiff of the need to serve all defendants with process, including by scheduling an order to show cause hearing as to why the action should not be dismissed if service is not complete. There is no indication in the record that Plaintiff ever filed a motion seeking relief related to the defendants’ alleged evasion of service and Plaintiff ultimately dismissed all defendants except Sacramento Manor. Significantly, Plaintiff does not provide any evidence indicating Sacramento Manor attempted to evade service or otherwise delayed this action.

In opposition, Defendant submits evidence that Plaintiff has not conducted any discovery and that Plaintiff has agreed to provide authorization to facilitate Defendant’s discovery of pertinent medical records but has substantially delayed in doing so. Plaintiff did not submit a reply disputing or explaining these actions. As a result of Plaintiff’s delay in providing the authorization, an order advancing trial would prejudice Sacramento Manor by requiring Sacramento Manor to proceed to trial without having had a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery.

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate sufficient diligence to support a finding of good cause to advance trial. The motion to advance trial is therefore denied.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2021-00303600-CU-PO-GDS: Jack Kellum vs. Sacramento Manor Apartments 04/24/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other Motion to Specially Set Pursuant to 5-year Statute in Department 17A

A motion to confirm tolling of the deadline to commence trial is not among the enumerated motions heard by the Presiding Judge. (Local Rule 1.05.) Plaintiff’s request for an order tolling the deadline is therefore denied without prejudice to reassertion before the Civil Home Court assigned to this action.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1019.5; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1312.)

This case has been assigned to Department 17A for hearing. In the event that either party requests a hearing the matter will be heard at 9:30 a.m. in Department 17A. Any party requesting an oral argument must contact the clerk at (916) 874-5487 and opposing counsel or parties in pro per by 12:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing. If a proper request for hearing is not made, this shall become the order of the Court. Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government Code section 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 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.