2013-00145898-CU-MC

County of Sacramento vs. Kiran Rawat

Nature of Proceeding: Motion to Set Aside Appointment of Receiver

Filed By: Singh, Raj

*** Judge Cadei discloses that his wife, Toni J. Moore, is the Executive Director
of the First 5 Sacramento Commission, an entity which is part of the County of
Sacramento. First 5 California and 58 First 5 County Commissions were created
by statewide voter initiative passed in 1998. First 5 is separately funded out of
special tobacco tax proceeds and is directed to support programs for children.
As such the Commission is not dependent on the general funds of Sacramento
County for its operations. The Board of Supervisors of Sacramento County
does review and approve its yearly budgets and long-term plans. ***

This matter was originally set for hearing on 11/7/2013 in Dept. 54 but after Judge
Cadei was disqualified on 11/5/2013, it was transferred to Dept. 53 for hearing on
11/22/2013 at 2:00 p.m. However, because Judge Brown has now determined that the
present motion seeks pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §1008 reconsideration of
the 9/24/2013 order issued by Judge Cadie, this motion alone has been transferred
back to Dept. 54 and the Court now issues the following tentative ruling.

Defendant Raj Singh’s “Motion to Set Aside the Appointment of the Receiver; and
Motion for Rehearing/Reconsideration” is deemed a Motion for Reconsideration of the
Court’s 9/24/2013 order granting plaintiff County of Sacramento’s motion for
appointment of receiver is DENIED and NO ORAL ARGUMENT will be permitted.

Defendant Singh is admonished because the notice of motion fails to comply with
Code of Civil Procedure §1010 and CRC Rule 3.1110(a) and because none of the
moving papers comply with CRC Rule 3.1110(b)(3)-(4).

Although the notice of motion provided notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system as
required by Local Rule 1.06(D), the notice does not comply with that rule. Defendant
Singh is directed to review the Local Rules, effective 1/1/2013.

At the outset, the Court notes that defendant Singh filed an opposition to plaintiff
County’s earlier motion for appointment of receiver but those opposition papers were
filed by attorney Oliver in San Francisco, indicating to this Court that defendant Singh
is represented by counsel. However, the present motion purports to indicate that
defendant Singh is acting in pro per even though the Court’s file reflect no substitution
or withdrawal of counsel.

Regardless, defendant Singh has not provided any new or different law, facts or
circumstances as expressly required by Code of Civil Procedure §1008 which relate to
any issue presented by plaintiff County’s earlier motion for appointment of receiver
and/or which tend to show that the outcome of plaintiff County’s motion could or should
have been any different. Instead, defendant Singh first re-asserts the same largely
incoherent and legally irrelevant arguments which were offered in opposition to the
earlier Motion to Appoint Receiver but this is not a valid ground on which to seek
reconsideration under §1008. Since the moving papers fail to show any new or
different law, facts or circumstances which might otherwise justify reconsideration of
the 9/24/2013 order appointing receiver, the present motion must be denied.

Even if defendant Singh had presented new or different law, facts or circumstances
that somehow relate to plaintiff County’s earlier motion and/or the 9/24/2013 order
appointing receiver, he has not provided any legitimate explanation why such law,
facts or circumstances could not, despite reasonable diligence, have been presented
in the opposition to plaintiff County’s earlier motion. The failure to address this key
issue also mandates denial of reconsideration of the 9/24/2013 order.

Plaintiff County’s objections to evidence are sustained.

Defendant Singh’s request for judicial notice, filed 11/18/2013, is denied because it was not timely filed or served in connection with the original hearing date of 11/7/2013
and because none of the attachments thereto is the proper subject for judicial notice
under Evidence Code §450 et seq.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required.
(Code Civ. Proc. §1019.5; CRC Rule 3.1312.)