Tentative Rulings
Civil Tentative Rulings and Probate Examiner Recommendations are available below. All attempts possible are made to have the information on these pages updated by 3:00pm the day prior to hearing in order to allow for any needed continuances or travel if an appearance should be required.
Civil Tentative Rulings: The court does not issue tentative rulings on Writs of Attachment, Writs of Possession, Claims of Exemption, Claims of Right to Possession, Motions to Tax Costs After Trial, Motions for New Trial, or Motions to Continue Trial. Under California Rules of Court, rule 3.1308 and Local Rule 701, any party opposed to the tentative ruling must notify the court and other parties by 4:00 p.m. today of their intention to appear for oral argument. The court's notice must be made by facsimile (fax) to 559-733-6774.
Probate Examiner Recommendations: For further information regarding a Visalia probate matter listed below you may contact the Visalia Probate Document Examiner at 559-730-5000 ext #2342. For further information regarding a SCJC probate matter listed below you may contact the SCJC Probate Document Examiner at 559-730-5000 ext #1430. The Probate Calendar Clerk may be reached at 559-730-5000 Option 4, then Option 6.
Civil Tentative Rulings & Probate Examiner Recommendations
The Tentative Rulings for Wednesday, April 30, 2025, are:
Re: Deutsche Bank National Trust Company vs. Osburn, Ronald
Case No.: VCL318959
Date: April 30, 2025
Time: 8:30 A.M.
Dept. 2-The Honorable Bret D. Hillman
Motions: Ronald Osburn’s (1) Motion to Consolidate Cases in Federal Court; and (2) Motion to Set Aside Default Judgments
Tentative Rulings: Osburn’s motions are denied.
On March 10, 2025, plaintiff Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as trustee for Indymac Indx Mortgate Loan Trust 2006-ARII, filed a complaint for forcible detainer and money damages against defendants Ronald Osburn and Sadie Bell Osburn. Plaintiff alleges it owns 4523 W. Evergreen Ct., in Visalia, having purchased the property at a trustee sale, and that defendants unlawfully entered the property and have deprived plaintiff of possession.
Plaintiff filed a proof of service averring that service of the complaint and summons, and related pleadings, was made on March 12, 2025, by substituted service.
On March 17, 2025, Ronald Osburn filed a document entitled “Lawful Notice and Challenge to Subject Matter and In Personam Jurisdiction,” which did not constitute a responsive pleading and, in any event, is not at issue in the instant motions.
On April 16, 2025, plaintiff filed a request for entry of default and a clerk’s judgment.
On April 21, 2025, Ronald Osburn filed (1) a “Motion to Consolidate Cases in Federal Court” which references subdivision (a) of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42 and section 1367 of title 28 of the United States Code; and (2) a “Motion to Set Aside Default Judgment,” which references Code of Civil Procedure section 473.
Motion to Consolidate
Osburn seeks an order from this state court to consolidate this state action with an assertedly pending federal action. Being a state court, however, this court obviously has no power to consolidate this action with a federal action. The statutes referenced by Osburn—Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42, subdivision (a), which prescribes when a federal court may consolidate actions, and section 1367 of title 28 of the United States Code, governing federal court supplemental jurisdiction—establish no such power in this state court.
The motion to consolidate is, therefore, denied.
Motion to Set Aside Default
Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b), permits a court to relieve a party “from a judgment, dismissal, order, or other proceeding taken against him or her through his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.”
The basis of Osburn’s motion to set aside is that he was “improperly served.” Osburn contends service “in this case” (he references no specific document) was made to him “in the wrong legal capacity, identifying him as a tenant rather than the equitable owner of the subject property.” (Original italics.)
Osburn apparently submits that, incident to being served “in the wrong legal capacity” he was “surprise[d]” by this action. (§ 473, subd. (b).) Osburn does not expressly state this, but it is the only possible inference the court can draw. The court further notes Osburn’s contention that, incident to the asserted service defect, he “was unaware of the proceedings … and had no meaningful opportunity to respond before default was entered.”
Osburn was not, however, even by his own account, surprised; nor can he credibly maintain he “was unaware of the proceedings.” Osburn admits “service may have reached the correct individual,” and further still, because he is that “correct individual,” and would know, and would be charged to point out, if he wasn’t served, the court assumes he was served, was aware of the proceedings, and, consequently, was not surprised to learn default had been entered.
Ultimately, Osburn’s operative contention, though, is really that “service that misidentifies the recipient’s legal status … is inherently defective.” The court declines to consider this point, however, because Osburn identifies neither authority in support of the proposition that “service,” generally “in this case,” is “inherently defective” where it “misidentifies the recipient’s legal status,” nor even the document served upon him that purportedly misidentified his “legal status.” (See In re Marriage of Tharp (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 1295, 1310, fn. 3 [116 Cal.Rptr.3d 375] [a court need not consider or may disregard statements and contentions made without proper citation.].)
Being presented with no proper ground for relief under Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b), the court denies Osburn’s motion to set aside default.
If no one requests oral argument, under Code of Civil Procedure section 1019.5(a) and California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), no further written order is necessary. The minute order adopting this tentative ruling will become the order of the court and service by the clerk will constitute notice of the order