AFFIRMATION/AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE - Affidavit of Service- CLERK OF THE SUFFOLK COUNTY DISTRICT COURT September 06, 2023 (2024)

Related Contentin Suffolk County

Case

US BANK NATIONAL v. EDMONSON, KEITH F.

Nov 26, 2014 |Iliou, Hon. John |RP-Mortgage Foreclosure-Residential |RP-Mortgage Foreclosure-Residential |448/2011

Case

U.S. BANK TRUST NATIONAL ASSOCIATION v. BRADY, VERONICA et al

Sep 21, 2023 |Hackeling, Hon. C. Stephen |RP-Mortgage Foreclosure-Residential |RP-Mortgage Foreclosure-Residential |623458/2023

Case

ASTORIA FEDERAL SAVINGS AND v. CAMPO, ADOSINDA

Dec 10, 2013 |Hudson, Hon. James C. |RP-Mortgage Foreclosure-Residential |RP-Mortgage Foreclosure-Residential |30318/2013

Case

Charles Muller v. Brookhaven Town Of

Aug 21, 2023 |Other Real Property - SCAR |Other Real Property - SCAR |810350/2023

Case

Erica Smetana v. Southampton Town Of

Jul 29, 2024 |Other Real Property - SCAR |Other Real Property - SCAR |805595/2024

Case

Luann Delesseps v. Southampton Town Of

Jul 29, 2024 |Other Real Property - SCAR |Other Real Property - SCAR |805218/2024

Case

U.S. Bank Trust National Association, Not In Its Individual Capacity But Solely As Owner Trustee For Rcf 2 Acquisition Trust v. Byron Jackson INDIVIDUALLY, Byron Jackson AS SURVIVING SPOUSE OF CYNTHIA JACKSON, Ocwen Loan Servicing, Llc Successor By Merger To Option One Mortgage Corp., New York State Department Of Taxation And Finance, Clerk Of The Suffolk County District Court, John Doe

Dec 07, 2023 |Robert F. Quinlan |Real Property - Mortgage Foreclosure - Residential |Real Property - Mortgage Foreclosure - Residential |630309/2023

Case

Nicole Costa v. Brookhaven Town Of

Jul 17, 2024 |Other Real Property - SCAR |Other Real Property - SCAR |801719/2024

Case

Andrea Filpi v. Huntington Town Of

Sep 21, 2023 |Other Real Property - SCAR |Other Real Property - SCAR |813221/2023

Ruling

CHURCHILL FUNDING I LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS 732 INDIANA, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

Aug 21, 2024 |24SMCV03940

Case Number: 24SMCV03940 Hearing Date: August 21, 2024 Dept: P The court is inclined to GRANT the application. Plaintiff made two loans for two separate properties. The loans were guaranteed and secured by the properties. The loan agreements had a provision allowing for the appointment of a receiver should there be a default. Defendants have not made any payments on the loans, which are in significant default. Moreover, the properties remain under construction. Although largely built, significant work remains to be done before completion. Finally, plaintiff alleges that defendants have abandoned the properties, meaning that there is no one there on site and the property is open and losing value. Under those circ*mstances, the court believes an injunction is in order as is the appointment of a receiver. And, because plaintiffs showing is quite strong and there is little or no hardship to defendants, the court will require a bond of only $10,000 each from the receiver and plaintiff. Given that, the court will sign the order. The court notes that this is in the nature of a TRO, and therefore will be of only short duration. The court will issue an OSC with a hearing date to be discussed at the hearing. The court notes that it has drafted this order without having seen any opposition. If an opposition is filed, the court will certainly consider it before this tentative becomes the order of the court.

Ruling

BINFORD ROAD LLC VS PAUL DEN BESTE

Aug 19, 2024 |CV2104251

DATE: 08/13/24 TIME: 1:30 P.M. DEPT: A CASE NO: CV2104251PRESIDING: HON. STEPHEN P. FRECCEROREPORTER: CLERK: RON BAKERPLAINTIFF: BINFORD ROAD LLC vs.DEFENDANT: PAUL DEN BESTENATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: MOTION — OTHER: TO APPOINT SUCCESSORRECEIVER, ETC. RULINGBefore the Court is Defendant Paul Den Beste’s (“Defendant”) motion for the appointment of asuccessor receiver. The parties appeared for a case management conference on August 9, 2024and agreed that the motion should be granted. The hearing set for August 13, 2024 is thereforeVACATED and the motion is GRANTED.The Court notes, however, Defendant asserts in his moving papers that the receiver is an“indispensable” party to this litigation. To the extent Defendant seeks to join any party to thislitigation, whether indispensable or otherwise, or to the extent he seeks other relief, he may onlydo so only through a properly noticed motion set for hearing before the Court. The Court’spresent order is limited to granting the request for appointment of a successor trustee.As set forth at the case management conference, the parties shall file and serve their nominationsfor a receiver and proposed order for the receivership as follows: 1 The parties submit nominations, together with a summary of qualifications for the nominee, along with a proposed order for the receivership on August 16, 2024. 2. Any objections or response to the opposing side’s submission on August 23, 2024.Unless otherwise ordered, the Court will take the matter under submission and issue an orderwithout a hearing.CV2104251 All parties must comply with Marin County Superior Court Local Rules, Rule 2.10(B)to contest the tentative decision. Parties who request oral argument are required to appear inperson or remotely by ZOOM. Regardless of whether a party requests oral argument inaccordance with Rule 2.10(B), the prevailing party shall prepare an order consistent with theannounced ruling as required by Marin County Superior Court Local Rules, Rule 2.11. The Zoom appearance information for August, 2024 is as follows: https:/Avww.zoomgov.com/j/1602925171?pwd=NUdsaVlabHNrNjZGZjFsVjVSTUVqQT09 Meeting ID: 160 292 5171 Passcode: 868745 If you are unable to join by video, you may join by telephone by calling (669) 254-5252and using the above-provided passcode, Zoom appearance information may also be found onthe Court’s website: https:/Avww.marin.courts.ca.go'Page 2 of 2

Ruling

- COUNTY OF STANISLAUS vs SHAIBI, YEHIA AHMED QASSEM -

Aug 21, 2024 |CV-22-005038

CV-22-005038 - COUNTY OF STANISLAUS vs SHAIBI, YEHIA AHMED QASSEM - Plaintiff's Motion for Terminating and Monetary Sanctions Against Defendant Lion's Market and/or Its Counsel - GRANTED.The Court finds, in relation to Defendant’s protracted delay in submitting responses, and incomplete ones at that, to Plaintiff’s discovery propounded on Defendant as far back as in June 2023, and in failing to comply with the Court’s order of February 15, 2024, that Defendant’s said conduct amounts to abuse of the discovery process that warrants the imposition of terminating sanctions. (Code Civ. Proc. §§2023.030 (d) and (g), and 2023.010 (d)(1) and (d)(4).Defendant is aware of the Court’s order and yet has failed to comply with same. (Los Defensores, Inc. v. Gomez (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 377; Liberty Mutual Fire Ins. Co. v. LcL Administrators, Inc. (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 1093); Creed-21 v. City of Wildomar (2017) 18 Cal. App. 5th 690, review denied).Furthermore, the Court has, on at least two occasions, granted Defendant’s requests for additional time to respond to said discovery. “The court is not required to have infinite patience in these situations”. (Jerry's Shell v. Equilon Enterprises, LLC, (2005) 134 Cal. App. 4th 1058).Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is hereby granted.All of Defendant’s allegations in its First Amended Answer to Plaintiff’s Complaint, notably paragraphs 3-6 (p. 2, lines. 17-25) of Defendant’s First Amended Answer and its prayer for relief are hereby stricken. (Code Civ. Proc. §2023.030 (d)(1)). Default judgement is hereby rendered in Plaintiff’s favor.Monetary sanctions are issued in Plaintiff’s favor against Defendant and their Counsel Tyler Kelly Esq. for Plaintiff’s reasonable fees and costs in having to file this motion in the sum of $2,700 including prior sanctions of $900 if same remains unpaid. Said sanctions shall be paid to Plaintiff’s Counsel within fourteen (14) days of the date of this order.

Ruling

Heritage 21, LLC vs. Bramble, et al.

Aug 19, 2024 |22CV-0200645

Ruling

Sol Selection, LLC vs. All persons unknown

Aug 25, 2024 |23CV-0203591

SOL SELECTION, LLC VS. ALL PERSONS UNKNOWNCase Number: 23CV-0203591This matter is on calendar for review regarding status of default judgment. On June 5, 2024, thisCourt issued its Ruling after a June 3, 2024 Default Prove Up hearing. The Court denied therequest to enter default judgment without prejudice. Nothing further has been filed. Anappearance is necessary on today’s calendar to provide the Court with a status of defaultjudgment.

Ruling

JAMES LATTIMORE AND CHERYL LATTIMORE INDIVIDUALLY AND AS TRUSTEES OF THE LATTIMORE FAMILY TRUST DATED SEPTEMBER 30 2004 vs. KEVIN JENNINGS DBA JENNINGS CONSTRUCTION et al

Aug 26, 2024 |22CV12749

No appearances are necessary. The hearing is vacated as the matter is set for trial.

Ruling

Aug 20, 2024 |CVRI2403157

B&B CARRIER, INC. VSCVRI2403157 PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIONEAST WEST BANKTentative Ruling: Deny motion.A motion for preliminary injunction must show (1) a probability of prevailing on the merits,and (2) that the balance of hardships favors issuance of the injunction. (O’Connell v. SuperiorCourt (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 1452, 1463.) However, “[t]he applicant must demonstrate a realthreat of immediate and irreparable injury.” (Triple A. Machine Shop, Inc. v. State of California(1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 131, 138.)Here, Plaintiffs will suffer harm because they will lose real property. With regard toPlaintiff’s three causes of action for fraud, a preliminary injunction is neither requested noravailable as a remedy, even if Plaintiff is likely to or in fact, succeeds on the merits of said claims.(Cal. Civil Code § 3343.) The complaint makes no request for injunctive relief in any of the threefraud causes of action. (Complaint, ¶¶ 31, 38, and 44.) “In general, if the plaintiff may be fullycompensated by the payment of damages in the event he prevails, then preliminary injunctiverelief should be denied.” (Tahoe Keys Property Owners' Assn. v. State Water Resources ControlBd. (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 1459, 1471.) Likewise, Cal. Civil Code § 3343, which covers damagesresulting from the fraudulent sale of property, does not list injunctive relief as an available remedy.Therefore, the fraud claims must not be considered when evaluating Plaintiff’s request for apreliminary injunction.Plaintiff’s fourth cause of action for breach of duty care, honesty, good faith fair dealingand disclosure is only brought against Defendants eXp realty and Robach who are not affiliatedwith the party against whom the preliminary injunction is being sought. Thus, the fourth cause ofaction, and any conduct by eXp Realty or Robach, cannot be considered either.This leaves only Plaintiff’s fifth cause of action for violations of the unfair competition lawas defined by Cal. Business and Professions Code § 17200, et seq. (“UCL”). Business &Professions Code §17200 prohibits any business act or practice that is unlawful, unfair, orfraudulent. A cause of action for violating this statute “borrows” actionable conduct and makes itindependently actionable under the UCL. (Smith v. State Farm (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 700, 718.)Here, Plaintiff could “borrow” the actionable conduct from the fraud allegations to support his UCLclaim. But, given the deposition testimony that is attached to Bank’s opposition, Plaintiff is notlikely to succeed on his fraud claims. Mr. Butter, who is the owner and CEO of Plaintiff, statesseveral times that he did not discuss the permit issue with Mr. Suk or anyone from Bank prior tomissing his first payment and after the loan was funded. (Declaration of Thomas Robins, ¶ 3,Exhibit 1.)Moreover, relief under the UCL requires ongoing wrongful business conduct. (CaliforniaService Station etc. Assn. v. Union Oil Co. (1991) 232 Cal.App.3d 44, 56-57.) This would requireongoing wrongful business conduct that makes the foreclosure itself wrongful. Plaintiff alleges noongoing fraudulent conduct. The complaint alleges a potential single act that impacted the sale ofthe Property. Additionally, Plaintiff admits that it had defaulted on the loan. (Declaration ofParminder Singh Butter, ¶ 10.) That alone gives Bank the right to foreclose on the Property.Therefore, it is not likely that Plaintiff will succeed in proving that he reasonably relied on anystatements made by Bank or its employees or agents to support the fraud claim against Bank.

Ruling

34-2021-00305326-CU-OR-GDS

Aug 20, 2024 |Unlimited Civil (Other Real Property (not emin...) |34-2021-00305326-CU-OR-GDS

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 34-2021-00305326-CU-OR-GDS: Michele Solomon vs. James Brian Putler 08/21/2024 Hearing on Motion of Summary Judgment/Adjudication in Department 54Tentative RulingDefendants/Cross-Complainants James Brian Putler and Brian Pifferini’s (“Defendants”) motionfor summary judgment, or in the alternative, motion for summary adjudication, is ruled upon asfollows.Plaintiffs’ counsel is admonished for failing to comply with CRC Rule 3.1110(f)(4).The parties’ unopposed requests for judicial notice are granted for the limited scope whichjudicial notice is permitted.BackgroundThis is a boundary dispute between two neighbors. Plaintiffs/Cross-Defendants Michele andAaron Solomon (“Plaintiffs”) allege the following. In 1987, Plaintiffs purchased the real propertylocated at 2031 Maple Glen Road, Sacramento, California 95864 in the subdivision known asArden Oaks. At the time of the sale, 2031 Maple Glen was owned by the Williamses.Additionally, the Williamses also owned the adjacent property located at 2041 Maple Glen.Plaintiffs allege that the Williamses developed Arden Oaks. The two properties are divided by asplit rail fence that was installed when the properties were developed in 1950. The configurationof the fence creates an enclosed wedge-shaped area (“the Wedge”) measuring approximately1,571.11 square feet. With the current configuration, Plaintiffs have exclusive access to theWedge and have installed and maintained various improvements in the Wedge.Defendants are the current owners of 2041 Maple Glen. In 2020, Defendants notified Plaintiffsthat they had commissioned a survey that revealed that the fence was not the actual boundaryline. Defendants thus informed Plaintiffs that they intended to demolish the fence and erect anew fence along the boundary line that is consistent with their survey. The new fence woulddeprive Plaintiffs access to the Wedge.Defendants filed the instant motion for summary judgment on June 20, 2023. Plaintiffs opposedand moved for leave to file an amended complaint. The Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion, and onMarch 15, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint. On July 10, 2024, Defendants filed asecond amended notice of motion for summary judgment/adjudication. According toDefendants’ amended notice of motion, “Defendants are entitled to summary judgment as toPlaintiffs’ complaint because Plaintiffs are not entitled to a prescriptive easem*nt as a matter oflaw. Defendants are also entitled to summary judgment as [to] their cross-complaint becauseDefendants own a fee interest in their property unencumbered by Plaintiffs’ alleged easem*nt.”(Second Amended Notice 2:4-7.)Alternatively, Defendants argue they are entitled to summary adjudication as to the followingissues: Page 1 of 6 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 34-2021-00305326-CU-OR-GDS: Michele Solomon vs. James Brian Putler 08/21/2024 Hearing on Motion of Summary Judgment/Adjudication in Department 54 Issue No. One - Plaintiffs’ first cause of action in their Complaint for declaratory relief fails because Plaintiffs are not entitled to a prescriptive easem*nt as a matter of law. Issue No. Two - Plaintiffs’ second cause of action in their Complaint for an injunction fails because Plaintiffs are not entitled to a prescriptive easem*nt as a matter of law. Issue No. Three – Defendants are entitled to summary adjudication as to their first cause of action to quiet title in their cross-complaint because Defendants own a fee interest in their property unencumbered by Plaintiffs’ alleged easem*nt. Issue No. Four – Defendants are entitled to summary adjudication as to their second cause of action for declaratory relief in their cross-complaint because Defendants own a fee interest in their property unencumbered by Plaintiffs’ alleged easem*nt.(Id. 2:9-18.)Since Defendants filed the instant motion on June 20, 2023, Plaintiffs have filed an amendedpleading. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s original complaint, at which the motion is directed, is nolonger operative. On this basis the motion for summary judgment as to Plaintiffs’ complaint isDENIED. The motion for summary adjudication as to issue nos. 1 and 2, also directed at claimsin Plaintiffs’ complaint, is likewise DENIED.The Court now addresses whether Defendants are entitled to summary judgment as to their cross-complaint, or in the alternative, summary adjudication as to issue nos. 3 or 4.Undisputed Material Facts [“UMF”]Defendants assert UMF nos. 1-6 in support of their motion as to issue nos. 3 and 4.Plaintiffs own the residential home at 2031 Maple Glen Road. (UMF 1.) Defendants own theresidential home at 2041 Maple Glen Road. (UMF 2.) The properties are adjacent to each otherand share a fence-line composed of “a split rail fence, a taller solid fence, brick column, and achain-link fence.” (UMF 3.) Defendants claim the fence-line is not on the legal boundary lineand encroaches on Defendants’ property. (UMF 4.) Plaintiffs dispute, arguing the fence reflectsthe legal boundary, and aerial photographs as far back as 1953 reflect the current fencing is in thesame location as the original fencing placed by the developers.Plaintiffs submit Additional Material Facts [“AMF”] nos. 1-22 in opposition.To the extent the parties’ responses to UMFs purport to assert objections to evidence, suchobjections are overruled because CRC Rule 3.1354(b) states that objections to evidence shall beset forth in a separate document and must inter alia quote or set forth the objectionable statement Page 2 of 6 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 34-2021-00305326-CU-OR-GDS: Michele Solomon vs. James Brian Putler 08/21/2024 Hearing on Motion of Summary Judgment/Adjudication in Department 54or material.Legal StandardIn evaluating a motion for summary judgment and/or summary adjudication, the Court engagesin a three-step process.First, the Court identifies the issues framed by the pleadings. The pleadings define the scope ofthe issues on a motion for summary judgment. (FPI Dev. Inc. v. Nakashima (1991) 231Cal.App.3d 367, 381-382.) Because a motion for summary judgment is limited to the issuesraised by the pleadings (Lewis v. Chevron (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 690, 694), all evidencesubmitted in support of or in opposition to the motion must be addressed to the claims anddefenses raised in the pleadings. The court cannot consider an unpleaded issue in ruling on amotion for summary judgment. (Roth v. Rhodes (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 530, 541.) The papersfiled in response to a defendant’s motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication maynot create issues outside the pleadings and are not a substitute for an amendment to thepleadings. (Tsemetzin v. Coast Federal Savings & Loan Assn. (1997) 57 Cal.App.4th 1334,1342.)Next, the Court must determine whether the moving party has met its burden. A defendantmoving for summary judgment bears the burden of persuasion that one or more elements of theplaintiff’s cause of action cannot be established, or that there is a complete defense to the causeof action. (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850 [quoting Code Civ. Proc.,§ 437c, subd. (p)(2)].)Once the moving party has met its initial burden, the burden shifts to the opposing party to showthat a material factual issue exists as to the cause of action alleged or affirmative defenseclaimed. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p); see, generally, Bush v. Parents without Partners(1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 322, 326-327.)Finally, in ruling on the motion, the Court must consider the evidence and inferences reasonablydrawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the opposing party. (Aguilar, supra, at 843.)Summary judgment is properly granted only if the moving party’s evidence establishes that thereis no issue of material fact to be tried. (Lipson v. Super. Ct. (1982) 31 Cal.3d 362, 374.)DiscussionIssues No. 3 and 4Defendants contend they are entitled to summary adjudication as to their first cause ofaction to quiet title in their cross-complaint because they own the Wedge and Plaintiffsdo not have a prescriptive easem*nt. Page 3 of 6 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 34-2021-00305326-CU-OR-GDS: Michele Solomon vs. James Brian Putler 08/21/2024 Hearing on Motion of Summary Judgment/Adjudication in Department 54The first cause of action in the Cross-Complaint is premised on the following allegations: The area between the legal boundary and portions of a fence separating the properties forms a wedge. Fencing encloses the wedge area of the Property as though it is part of Cross-Defendants' property, thereby preventing Cross- Complainants access to that portion of their Property. On or around June 30, 2021, Cross-Complainants informed Cross-Defendants of their intent to tear down the fencing that separates their properties and erect a new fence along the legal boundary line between the properties. Cross-Defendants now contend that they have a prescriptive easem*nt over the wedge area.(Cross-Complaint ¶¶ 10-12.)A motion for summary judgment or adjudication is framed by the pleadings. Thepleadings define the scope of the issues on a motion for summary judgment or summaryadjudication. (FPI Dev. Inc., supra, at 381-382.) Because a motion for summaryjudgment or summary adjudication is limited to the issues raised by the pleadings (seeLewis, supra, at 694), all evidence submitted in support of or in opposition to the motionmust be addressed to the claims and defenses raised in the pleadings. Since Defendantsfiled the instant motion, Plaintiffs have filed an amended complaint, no longer asserting aprescriptive easem*nt theory. Because the motion for adjudication is directed at a claimthat is no longer being asserted, it must be DENIED.Similarly, Defendants contend they are entitled to summary adjudication as to theirsecond cause of action for declaratory relief in their cross-complaint because Defendantsown a fee interest in their property unencumbered by Plaintiffs’ alleged easem*nt.The second cause of action in the Cross-Complaint is premised on the followingallegations: An actual controversy has arisen and now exists between Cross-Complainants and Cross-Defendants concerning their respective rights to the wedge area of the Property. Cross-Complainants assert that Cross-Defendants have no right to the wedge area of the Property. Cross-Defendants assert that they have a prescriptive easem*nt over the wedge area of the Property.(Cross-Complaint ¶ 17.)Again, the Cross-Complaint is premised on allegations Plaintiff is no longer asserting.Accordingly, the summary adjudication is DENIED.DispositionThe motion for summary judgment/adjudication is DENIED in its entirety, without prejudice, for Page 4 of 6 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 34-2021-00305326-CU-OR-GDS: Michele Solomon vs. James Brian Putler 08/21/2024 Hearing on Motion of Summary Judgment/Adjudication in Department 54the foregoing reasons.The Court need not rule on Defendants’ objections to evidence as they were not material to theCourt’s disposition of the motion. (Code Civ. Proc. §437c(q).)The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312 orfurther notice is required.NOTICE:Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on thiscalendar must comply with the following procedure:To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Law andMotion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615 by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before thehearing and advise opposing counsel. At the time of requesting oral argument, the requestingparty shall leave a voice mail message: a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oralargument; 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 thatopposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below. If norequest 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 eithertelephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with noticeto the Court and all other parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure §367.75. Althoughremote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely fornon-evidentiary civil hearings. The Department 53/54 Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept53.54 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 4650 6749. To appear onZoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NOCOURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED.Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporterservices at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules ofCourt, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy forOfficial Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website athttps://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 OfficialReporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-13.pdf. Page 5 of 6 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 34-2021-00305326-CU-OR-GDS: Michele Solomon vs. James Brian Putler 08/21/2024 Hearing on Motion of Summary Judgment/Adjudication in Department 54A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to besigned by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using areporter 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 waiverand requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party witha Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearingor at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerkwill forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided. Page 6 of 6

Document

Federal National Mortgage Association Fannie Mae A Corporation Organized And Existing Under The Laws Of The United States Of America v. Gloria Hernandez, Robinson Gonzalez

Mar 16, 2017 |John H. Rouse |Real Property - Mortgage Foreclosure - Residential |Real Property - Mortgage Foreclosure - Residential |604788/2017

Document

Nationstar Mortgage Llc v. Beth M Glennerster, Heath Glennerster, John Does And Jane Does

Jan 22, 2015 |James Hudson |Foreclosure (residential mortgage) |Foreclosure (residential mortgage) |600643/2015

Document

Reverse Mortgage Solutions, Inc. v. Marton Jansen, Secretary Of Housing And Urban Development, John Doe, Jane Doe

Mar 11, 2016 |Joseph A. Santorelli |Real Property - Mortgage Foreclosure - Residential |Real Property - Mortgage Foreclosure - Residential |603884/2016

Document

Finance Of America Reverse Llc v. Brian Joseph Dineen, As Trustee, Or His Successors In Trust, Under The Daniel J. Dineen Protection Trust, Dated May 9, 2017, United States Of America Acting On Behalf Of The Secretary Of Housing And Urban Development, New York State Department Of Taxation And Finance, United States Of American Acting On Behalf Of The Department Of Treasury - Internal Revenue Service, John Doe #1 Through John Doe #10, Said Names Being Fictitious And Unknown To Plaintiff, Intended To Be Possible Tenants Or Occupants Of The Premises, Or Corporations, Persons, Or Other Entities Having Or Claiming A Lien Upon The Mortgaged Premises

Nov 09, 2023 |FORECLOSURE CONFERENCE JUSTICE |Real Property - Mortgage Foreclosure - Residential |Real Property - Mortgage Foreclosure - Residential |628329/2023

Document

Jan 17, 2018 |James Hudson |Real Property - Mortgage Foreclosure - Residential |Real Property - Mortgage Foreclosure - Residential |600957/2018

Document

Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. v. U.S.A. Mortgage Bankers Of America, Inc.

Oct 25, 2017 |William B Rebolini |Real Property - Other (Discharge/Satisfied Mtg.) |Real Property - Other (Discharge/Satisfied Mtg.) |621094/2017

Document

The Bank Of New York Mellon F/K/A The Bank Of New York, As Trustee For The Certificateholders Of The Cwalt, Inc., Alternative Loan Trust 2006-Oc10, Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-Oc10 v. Angelina Carcione, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., As Mortgagee, As Nominee For Wilmington Finance, Inc., Its Successors And Assigns; Slomin'S, Inc., People Of The State Of New York, Town Supervisor Of The Town Of Brookhaven, State Of New York, Maria Rodriguez

Jun 02, 2023 |Susan B |Real Property - Mortgage Foreclosure - Residential |Real Property - Mortgage Foreclosure - Residential |613991/2023

Document

Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae), A Corporation Organized And Existing Under The Laws Of The United States Of America v. John Madden, Commissioner Of Social Services Of Suffolk County, John Doe, Said Name Being Fictitious, It Being The Intention Of Plaintiff To Designate Any And All Occupants Of Premises Being Foreclosed Herein, And Any Parties, corporations or entities, if any, having or claiming an interest or lien upon the mortgaged premises

Mar 26, 2018 |Thomas Whelan |Real Property - Mortgage Foreclosure - Residential |Real Property - Mortgage Foreclosure - Residential |605609/2018