CHARLES KING VS. ERIC STUART, ET AL.

June 2, 2026 Law and Motion Calendar PAGE 10 Judge: HONORABLE NANCY L. FINEMAN, Department 04 ________________________________________________________________________

2:00 PM LINE 7 23-CIV-01887 CHARLES KING VS. ERIC STUART, ET AL.

CHARLES KING PRO SE ERIC STUART

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO CONTEST AND AMEND COMPLAINT; PERSONAL INJURY, NEGLIGENCE, IIED

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Charles King has filed two unopposed motions to contest. The first motion filed February 4, 2026 is entitled “Plaintiff’s Motion to Contest and Amend Complaint; Personal Injury, Negligence, IIED” consists of sixteen pages and is set for a hearing on June 2, 2026. The second motion filed March 30, 2026 is entitled “Motion to Contest Tentative Ruling and Proposed Order to Vacate Sanctions; Memorandum of Points and Authorities” is four pages and is set for a hearing on June 30, 2026. The motion set for a hearing on June 2, 2026 is DENIED.

First, there are no proofs of service in the court file. California Rules of Court 3.1300 requires that “proof of service of the moving papers must be filed no later than five court days before the time appointed for the hearing.” Without the proofs of service being filed, there is no evidence that defendants have been properly served with the motion and the court lacks jurisdiction to hear the motion. “[P]roof of service fulfills the function of establishing that ‘procedures implementing the constitutional requirements of due process were followed giving assurance that service really has been made.’ (West v.

West (1979) 92 Cal.App.3d 120, 124, 154 Cal.Rptr. 667.) Accordingly, when adequate proof of service is available, it is of no legal import that a party actually may not have received notice. (Ibid.) That being the case, the courts are very strict in applying the statutory standards for proof of service; failure to strictly comply with those standards deprives the court of jurisdiction to act. (Ibid.)” (Oats v. Oats (1983) 148 Cal.App.3d 416, 420.)

Second, while there is a date and time for the motion, June 2, 2026, plaintiff does not provide the location of the hearing or the judge hearing the motion, which information is required by California Rules of Court, rule 3.110(b)(1). Thus, defendants do not have proper notice of the hearing and the court cannot consider the motion. (See Diaz v. Professional Community Management, Inc. (2017) 16 Cal.App.5th 1190, 1204–1205 [court lacks jurisdiction to rule on a motion that has not been properly noticed].)

If the tentative ruling is not contested, it will become the order of the court without the need for a formal order.