The April 20 Production With an April 23 Service Oath

Case 23-009185 | Card 50 | 4880 T Street, Sacramento CA 95819

The case file the City exported on April 20, 2026 already held a proof of service sworn as executed on April 23. The file's own metadata (A.meta): created Mon Apr 20 13:46:33 2026 PDT [A.meta], last modified Mon Apr 20 17:57:50 2026 PDT [A.meta], 636 pages [A.meta]; released on the portal at 6:05pm [R.26-1549.1] and the request closed at 6:06pm [R.26-1549.1] that day (Card 47). Its last two pages are a City proof of service by certified mail, citing CCP 1013a and 2015.5, read here by eye: "I, Desere Williams, declare that:" [A635] … "On 04/23/2026, I served the following document:" [A635] "Notice of Hearing - Housing & Dangerous Buildings Costs Packet" [A635] on "JACKIE BARITELL TRUST, 4880 T ST" [A635] … "I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct, and that this declaration was executed at Sacramento, California, on 04/23/2026." [A635], signed. Page 636 [A636] is the same page again.

The City's own log, three days before the export, put that mailing in the future: 04/17/2026, "A Notice of Hearing packet will be sent by certified mail on 04.23.2026" [M040] — an entry the April file itself carries on page 39 [A039]. The packet is the City's Notice of Hearing dated 04/23/2026 [M627-629] for the June 10, 2026 cost-recovery hearing on invoice CDDCHC24459 ("Amount of Invoice: $410.40" [M627-629]; Card 11); on 04/28/2026 the log records "Received signed certified green card for the 06/10/2026 HCAAB hearing packet. Signature unknown dated 04/24/2026." [M040] A declaration under CCP 2015.5 [CCP.2015.5] states the date and place it was executed; a proof of service by mail under CCP 1013a [CCP.1013a] states the date of mailing. The requester's April 24 notice on the thread recorded the file's creation minute (Card 49); the City closed the request as complete on April 20 (Card 4). The file the City produced in May 2026 under Request 26-1965 (closed May 22, 2026 [R.26-1965.1]) carries the same declaration again at pages 630 and 631 [M630-631]: "On 04/23/2026, I served the following document:" [M630-631] … "executed at Sacramento, California, on 04/23/2026" [M630-631] — the same words, the same signature, the same date, on both pages.

What proof of service supports the June 10, 2026 cost-recovery hearing on 4880 T Street, other than the one declaration sworn as executed on April 23, 2026 [A635] — the page that closes a file the City's own metadata says it created on April 20 [A.meta], and that the file produced under Request 26-1965 carries again, word for word and date for date, at pages 630 and 631 [M630-631] — when the City's log on April 17 [M040] described the April 23 mailing as still to come, the execution date is the fact the law makes the declaration state [CCP.2015.5], and the City released the April file and closed Request 26-1549 [R.26-1549.1] three days before the date it swears to?

IN PLAIN TERMS

The City's own file says it was made on April 20 [A.meta]. Inside it, on the last two pages, is a signed, sworn statement that a hearing notice was mailed on April 23 and that the statement itself was signed on April 23. Three days before the file was made, the City's log said the notice would be mailed on April 23 [M040]. The file the City produced in May has the same signed statement [M630-631] again, same words, same date. A sworn date that had not yet arrived is the finding, not an explanation. The question for the City: what proof of service holds up the June 10 hearing, other than that one statement, in either file?

RECORD CHAIN

  1. The rule. CCP 1013a [CCP.1013a]: a proof of service by mail states the date and place of deposit. CCP 2015.5 [CCP.2015.5]: a sworn declaration states the date and place of its execution. The City's form invokes both.
  2. April 17, 2026 — the mailing, planned. Desere Williams: "A Notice of Hearing packet will be sent by certified mail on 04.23.2026" [M040] (also on the April file's page 39 [A039]).
  3. April 20, 2026, 1:46:33 PM – 6:06pm — the file created, released, closed. CreationDate Mon Apr 20 13:46:33 2026 PDT; ModDate Mon Apr 20 17:57:50 2026 PDT; Producer Microsoft: Print To PDF; 636 pages [A.meta]. Released 6:05pm; closed 6:06pm [R.26-1549.1]: "The City has collected all documents that appear to be responsive to your request." [R.26-1549.1]
  4. Pages 635 – 636 — the declaration inside that file. Proof of service by certified mail, CCP 1013a and 2015.5, Desere Williams [A635]: served "On 04/23/2026" [A635]; "executed at Sacramento, California, on 04/23/2026" [A635]; signed; "Case #: 23-009185". Page 636 repeats page 635 [A636].
  5. April 23 – 28, 2026 — the mailing, and the card back. The Notice of Hearing dated 04/23/2026 [M627-629] in the May file: hearing "Historic City Hall Commission Hearing Room at 915 I Street, Second Floor on 06/10/2026 at 5:30pm" [M627-629]. 04/28/2026: "Received signed certified green card for the 06/10/2026 HCAAB hearing packet. Signature unknown dated 04/24/2026." [M040]
  6. May 22, 2026 — the same declaration, produced again. The file produced under Request 26-1965 (closed May 22, 2026 [R.26-1965.1], "All responsive records have been provided." [R.26-1965.1]) carries the declaration at pages 630 and 631 [M630-631]: "On 04/23/2026, I served the following document:" [M630-631]; "executed at Sacramento, California, on 04/23/2026" [M630-631]; the same signature; no other proof of service for the June 10, 2026 packet appears in that file.

FULL CIRCLE

The City's first available answer is that staff prepare service declarations ahead of a scheduled mailing, and the April 20 export simply captured a form already in the system; the mailing then happened on April 23 as planned, and the green card proves it.

The date is not a formality on this form; it is the fact the declaration exists to state. CCP 2015.5 [CCP.2015.5] makes the declarant swear when and where the declaration was executed, and this one swears to April 23 inside a file the City created on April 20, three days after its own log said the mailing was still to come. A declaration signed in advance with a future date is the finding said out loud, not a way around it. The green card shows a mailing; it does not make the oath's date true.

The City's second available answer is that the June 10 hearing rests on the executed declaration the May 2026 production carries at pages 630 and 631 [M630-631], made after the April 23 mailing the green card dated 04/24/2026 [M040] confirms; the April 20 copy was the same form generated when the packet was scheduled on April 17.

The May pages are the April pages. Same declarant, same signature, same "On 04/23/2026, I served the following document:" [M630-631], same "executed at Sacramento, California, on 04/23/2026" [M630-631]. Nothing on them shows a second signing, a later date, or a form that differs from page 635 [A635] of the April file. If the April copy was a form generated on April 17, then the May copy is that form too, and the City's reading concedes the point: the oath date was written before it arrived.

The City's third available answer is that no page of a case-file export records when the export was assembled, and none has to.

The City's own metadata records it: created 1:46:33 PM and last modified 5:57:50 PM on April 20, released at 6:05pm. The question is not when the export was assembled; it is what proof of service the June 10 hearing stands on.

What would defeat this card is a proof of service for the June 10, 2026 hearing packet that was executed on or after April 23, 2026 and is not the form already inside the April 20 file, or an export record showing the April file assembled on or after April 23. The file the City produced in May 2026 under Request 26-1965 (631 pages; closed May 22, 2026 [R.26-1965.1] with "This closes your public record request." [R.26-1965.1]) carries the same declaration again at pages 630 and 631 [M630-631] — same words, same 04/23/2026 dates — and no other proof of service for that packet; the April production, closed with "This closes your public record request." [R.26-1549.1], holds only pages 635 [A635] and 636 [A636]. Card 4 is the completeness baseline (what the file the City produced means, and does not mean).

APPLICABLE LAW

SOURCE CITATIONS USED BY THIS CARD

CARD REFERENCES