SNAVELY vs SM FAMILY MISSION, LP, et al.

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.

Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver

24CV015408: SNAVELY vs SM FAMILY MISSION, LP, et al. 06/09/2026 Hearing on Motion to Deem Request for Admissions Admitted in Department 16D

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:

*** NOTICE: EFFECTIVE APRIL 13, 2026, THIS DEPARTMENT HAS MOVED TO THE TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE COURTHOUSE LOCATED AT 500 G STREET IN SACRAMENTO, CA. ALL MOTIONS NOTICED FOR DEPARTMENT 53 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 16D OF THE NEW COURTHOUSE. ALL PAPERS FOR THIS DEPARTMENT MUST BE FILED AT THIS NEW LOCATION AND WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED AT THE HALL OF JUSTICE. ALL HEARINGS WILL TAKE PLACE AT THIS NEW LOCATION. PARTIES MAY CONTINUE TO APPEAR REMOTELY IN DEPARTMENT 16D UNLESS SPECIFICALLY ORDERED OTHERWISE. ***

*** The Court finds in its file no proof of service demonstrating moving plaintiff’s service of the Notice of Disclosure issued on 5/12/2026, despite being directed to serve all other parties with the Notice of Disclosure “forthwith.” Moving plaintiff is directed to serve the Notice of Disclosure on all other parties forthwith and to file proof of service within five (5) court days. ***

Neither the original 5/11/2026 notice of motion nor the 5/19/2026 notice of advanced hearing date provides notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system, as required by Local Rule 1.06. Moving counsel is directed to contact opposing counsel and advise him/her of Local Rule 1.06 and the Court’s tentative ruling procedure and the manner to request a hearing. If moving counsel is unable to contact opposing counsel prior to hearing, moving counsel is ordered to appear at the hearing in person, by Zoom or by telephone.

Defendant Chen’s opposition papers filed on 6/3/2026 were not timely filed or served but they were in the Court’s discretion considered.

The Court notes that the responses to requests for admission attached as Exhibit A to the Cumarasamy Declaration in opposition inconsistently indicate such responses are to both “set one” and “set two” of plaintiff’s requests for admission. Notwithstanding this inconsistency, the Court construes Exhibit A as being responsive to the set of requests for admissions at issue in the present motion.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV015408: SNAVELY vs SM FAMILY MISSION, LP, et al. 06/09/2026 Hearing on Motion to Deem Request for Admissions Admitted in Department 16D

Plaintiff’s motion to deem admitted those matters specified in her requests for admissions, set one, to defendant Chen is DENIED because, based on the Cumarasamy Declaration filed on 6/3/2026, the Court finds that defendant Chen has served “before the hearing on the motion” proposed responses which are in substantial compliance with Code of Civil Procedure §2033.220. (See, Code Civ. Proc. §2033.280(c).) The Court notes that its finding that “substantially compliant” responses have been served before this hearing does not also mean that the individual responses are immune from any finding of deficiency or potential motion to compel further responses. The Court merely evaluates the responses “in toto” rather than based on responses to individual requests. (St. Mary v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 762, 779-780.)

To the extent moving plaintiff may contend defendant’s responses are deficient for any reason, plaintiff may file and serve an appropriate motion only after completing the requisite meet-and-confer process “either in person, by telephone, or by videoconference,” as now expressly required by the recently amended provisions of Code of Civil Procedure §2016.040(a). (Bold added for emphasis.)

Although this motion to deem admitted, is denied, plaintiff is awarded mandatory monetary sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure §2033.280(c) in the amount of $610, representing one hour of attorney time at a reasonable hourly rate of $550 plus the $60 filing fee. Sanctions to be paid no later than 7/9/2026 and if not paid by that date, plaintiff may prepare for the Court’s signature a formal order granting the sanctions, which may itself be enforced in the same manner and with the same force and effect as a money judgment. (See, e.g., Newland v. Superior Court (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 608, 615 [“monetary sanction orders are enforceable through the execution of judgment laws”].)

The Court declines to sign the proposed order submitted with the moving papers given that this motion is being denied in light of defendant Chen’s service “before the hearing on the motion” proposed responses that are in substantial compliance with Code of Civil Procedure §2033.220. The proposed order also specifies an award of monetary sanctions in an amount substantially higher than the amount actually awarded by the Court above.

Moving party to provide notice of this ruling and file proof of service of same within five (5) court days.

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