BENNETT vs SHAUN SPILLANE, OF OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

25CV010288: BENNETT vs SHAUN SPILLANE, OF OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL 01/06/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other For Appointment of Counsel and Self-Help Material 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.

25CV010288: BENNETT vs SHAUN SPILLANE, OF OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL 01/06/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other For Appointment of Counsel and Self-Help Material in Department 53

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.

TENTATIVE RULING:

The hearing on Plaintiff in pro per David Bennet’s motion to appoint counsel is DROPPED from calendar.

The papers filed in support of a motion must include a notice of motion, the motion itself, and a memorandum of points and authorities. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1112(a).) The “notice of motion must state in the opening paragraph the nature of the order being sought and the grounds for issuance of the order.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1110(a).) The notice of motion must also state when the hearing will be held and on what papers the motion is based. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1010.) Defective notice deprives the Court of jurisdiction. (Lee v. Placer Title Co. (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 503, 509.)

The moving papers consist of a single document entitled “motion for appointment of counsel and self-help material.” The paper fails to comply with the requirements for a notice of motion. As notice was defective, the Court lacks jurisdiction to consider the motion on its merits.

Even if the moving papers satisfied the requirements for a notice of motion, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that the notice was served on all parties entitled to notice. Any party that has appeared in the action and is not in default at the time a motion is filed is entitled to notice. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1010.) A proof of service demonstrating proper notice was served on all other parties must be filed at least five court days before the hearing. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1300.) Defective notice deprives the Court of jurisdiction. (Lee v. Placer Title Co. (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 503, 509.)

Defendant Shaun Spillane (“Defendant”) appeared in this action by filing an answer on June 12, 2025. This motion was filed on July 3, 2025. As Defendant had appeared at the time the motion was filed, Defendant was entitled to notice of the motion. Plaintiff did not file a proof of service showing Defendant was properly served in accordance with the timelines set forth in Code of Civil Procedure § 1005. For this further, independent reason, the Court lacks jurisdiction to consider the motion on its merits.

Further, the Court notes Plaintiff’s various requests for fee waivers have been denied based on

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV010288: BENNETT vs SHAUN SPILLANE, OF OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL 01/06/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other For Appointment of Counsel and Self-Help Material in Department 53

the failure to provide required information. (Order on Fee Waiver, 4/30/2025; Order on Fee Waiver, 5/1/2025.) Plaintiff must obtain a fee waiver or pay the filing fee before the Court will consider the motion on its merits.

Finally, the Court notes that Plaintiff’s address of record in this case remains, “P.O. Box 7001, Atascadero, CA, 93423.” This is the address that Plaintiff himself provided to the parties and Court by filing his complaint on April 28, 2025. Plaintiff has not notified the Court of any new or updated address, nor does Plaintiff’s present motion, filed on July 31, 2025, state on its title page, any address for Plaintiff. Plaintiff’s address of record remains the address to which documents and orders have been and will be served until and unless Plaintiff files a superseding address of record.

To the extent Plaintiff’s alleged difficulties are due in any part to not receiving Court orders or other served papers, this is due to Plaintiff’s own failure to comply with the Code of Civil Procedure, California Rules of Court, and the Court’s local rules. The Court clerk shall serve this order to the parties, including to Plaintiff at his address of record.