Jack Kellum vs. Sacramento Manor Apartments

34-2021-00303600-CU-PO-GDS: Jack Kellum vs. Sacramento Manor Apartments 06/05/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other Motion to Specially Set Pursuant to 5-year Statute in Department 17A

Tentative Ruling

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.

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.

This matter was previously scheduled for hearing on April 24, 2026. The Court took the matter under submission and granted Plaintiff leave to file a written reply by 05/04/2026. The Court granted Sacramento Manor leave to file a written response to the reply by 05/11/2026.

Plaintiff filed a timely reply on 05/04/2026 and filed a late supplemental declaration on 05/05/2026. The Court exercises its discretion to consider the supplemental declaration. Sacramento Manor filed a timely response with supporting declarations on 05/11/2026. After reviewing the collective papers, the Court issues the following revised tentative ruling.

The notice of motion requests an order to advance trial to a date on or before July 1, 2026 in order to avoid dismissal under Code of Civil Procedure § 583.310, et seq. Alternatively, Plaintiff requests the Court confirming the five-year deadline to commence trial has been tolled to December 31, 2026.

Plaintiff’s request to confirm the deadline to commence trial has been tolled is denied. As the Court noted in its prior tentative ruling, a motion to confirm the deadline to commence trial has been tolled is not among the enumerated motions heard by the Presiding Judge. (Local Rule, 1.05.) Thus, to the extent any such motion is proper, it must be brought in the Civil Home Court assigned to this action.

34-2021-00303600-CU-PO-GDS: Jack Kellum vs. Sacramento Manor Apartments 06/05/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other Motion to Specially Set Pursuant to 5-year Statute in Department 17A

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).) The “interests of justice weigh heavily against disposing of litigation on procedural grounds . . . .” (Salas v. Sears (1986) 42 Cal.3d 342, 347.) However, the Court will not reward “unreasonable procrastination to the prejudice of defendants, to diligent litigants who have had trials set and as a result will lose their priority, and to our already overburdened court calendars. (Id., p. 349.)

Thus, in considering a request to advance trial or for trial preference, the policy of favoring disposition on the merits “will necessarily prevail only if a plaintiff makes some showing of excusable delay.” (Id., p. 347.) In order to show good cause to advance trial before July 1, 2026, Plaintiff must therefore provide some showing of diligence in prosecuting this action such that the delay in obtaining a timely trial date can be excused.

The moving papers argued the trial was delayed due to the alleged actions of various defendants in evading service of process. Plaintiff has the burden to show that any delay in service was due to circumstances beyond Plaintiff’s control. (See Dale v. ITT Life Ins. Corp. (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 495, 501 [delays in attempt to complete service and malfeasance by the process server are within a plaintiff’s control and do not justify tolling].) Here, the initial moving papers did not provide any evidence to support a factual contention that any defendant caused a delay in service.

In reply, Plaintiff’s Counsel declares that “after an initial round of service, Defendant Sacramento Manor did not file a responsive pleading. However, default could not be taken since a statement of damages needed to be served per the clerk’s department in this court. It took approximately one year to serve the statement of damages because Defendant did not make themselves available for service. I reached out to my process server to receive an affidavit evidencing this, but have not received a reply as of yet.” (Janfaza Reply Decl., ¶ 9.)

Counsel vaguely declares that he had to be “heavily involved personally in having this matter served” because “the process server could not serve Defendant for many months . . . .” (Id., ¶ 10.) Plaintiff did not submit a declaration from the process server and Plaintiff’s reply does not provide any factual details to support a finding that any delay or difficulty in serving Sacramento Manor was due to Sacramento Manor’s conduct. Further, as Sacramento Manor notes in response, the proofs of service of the summons and statement of damages demonstrate Sacramento Manor was served in the same manner at the same location.

Sacramento Manor submitted this evidence with its original opposing papers. (RJN, Exhs. 3-4.) Thus, Plaintiff already had an opportunity to respond to this evidence and to explain why Sacramento Manor could not have been served sooner. Plaintiff failed to do so.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2021-00303600-CU-PO-GDS: Jack Kellum vs. Sacramento Manor Apartments 06/05/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other Motion to Specially Set Pursuant to 5-year Statute in Department 17A

Moreover, the record is devoid of evidence that Plaintiff acted promptly to resolve any delays in service. Where a defendant is evading service or cannot otherwise be served with reasonable diligence, a Plaintiff may seek an order permitting a defendant to be served by publication. (Code Civ. Proc. § 415.50.) There is no indication in the record that Plaintiff ever requested such an order, despite multiple warnings from the Court that the failure to serve and obtain an appearance for all defendants may result in dismissal of the action. In reply, Plaintiff confirms no such motion was necessary because Sacramento Manor filed an answer while there remained ample time to conduct discovery. (Reply, p. 5:7-8.) If there was ample time remaining to conduct discovery, it follows there was ample time for Plaintiff to obtain a timely trial date.

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds Plaintiff has failed to show good cause as to why Plaintiff should be permitted to jump the line of diligent litigants currently scheduled for trial on or before July 1, 2026.

However, given the potential this case will be dismissed, the Court finds good cause to advance the trial date to the earliest date available that will not prejudice the rights of other diligent litigants and will not cause prejudice to the other parties in this action. Based on the collective evidence presented, it appears Defendant will have obtained Plaintiff’s medical records by May 22, 2026. (Janfaza Reply Decl., ¶ 8.) The deposition of Plaintiff and Defendant’s person most knowledgeable are scheduled for May 27, 2026 and May 28, 2026 respectively, and Plaintiff’s responses to supplemental discovery are due on June 2, 2026. (Janfaza Supp. Reply Decl., ¶¶ 3- 4.) Based on the information provided and upon review of the Court’s calendar, the Court finds trial can be set on August 4, 2026 without prejudice to Defendant or other litigants.

The motion to specially set trial is granted to the extent the Court will advance trial to the earliest date available that will not cause prejudice. The November 23, 2026 mandatory settlement conference and December 28, 2026 trial dates are VACATED. Trial is set for August 4, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 17A. A mandatory settlement conference is set for June 30, 2026 at 9:30 a.m. in Room 450. All trial related and discovery deadlines shall be governed by the new trial date.

Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312, Plaintiff shall prepare a proposed order for the Court’s signature. During the time period allotted for preparation and review of the proposed order, the parties are directed to meet and confer as to whether they have a conflict with the August 4, 2026.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2021-00303600-CU-PO-GDS: Jack Kellum vs. Sacramento Manor Apartments 06/05/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other Motion to Specially Set Pursuant to 5-year Statute in Department 17A

If the parties agree to an earlier date for trial, they may instead submit a stipulated order for the proposed trial date. Alternatively, if the parties stipulate to extend the deadline to commence trial, the parties may submit a stipulated order for a later trial date.

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.