CHICAGO TITLE COMPANY, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION vs JEFFREY PANG & COMPANY, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, et al.

24CV009122: CHICAGO TITLE COMPANY, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION vs JEFFREY PANG & COMPANY, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, et al. 06/04/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One in Department 16D

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE:

Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on this calendar must comply with the following procedure:

To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615 by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the hearing and advise opposing counsel. At the time of requesting oral argument, the requesting party shall leave a voice mail message: a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oral argument; 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 that opposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below. If no request 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 either telephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with notice to the Court and all other parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure §367.75. Although remote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely for non-evidentiary civil hearings.

The Department 16D Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16146506749 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 4650 6749. To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NO COURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED.

Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://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 Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp- 13.pdf.

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.

24CV009122: CHICAGO TITLE COMPANY, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION vs JEFFREY PANG & COMPANY, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, et al. 06/04/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One in Department 16D

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

*** NOTICE: EFFECTIVE APRIL 13, 2026, THIS DEPARTMENT HAS MOVED TO THE TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE COURTHOUSE LOCATED AT 500 G. ST. 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. ***

TENTATIVE RULING: Defendant and Cross-Complainant Jeffrey Pang & Company, Inc.’s (“JPC”) motion to compel Defendant and Cross-Defendant Bruce Mintzer’s (“Mintzer”) responses to form interrogatories is denied without prejudice.

This is an interpleader action which was initiated Plaintiff Chicago Title Company. Plaintiff contended that there was a dispute as to $100,000 between JPC and Mintzer. An interpleader action is traditionally viewed as two suits: one between the stakeholder and the claimants to determine the stakeholder's right to interplead, and the other among the claimants to determine who shall receive the funds interpleaded. [citations omitted] As against the stakeholder, claimants may raise only matters which go to whether the suit is properly one for interpleader, i.e., whether the elements of an interpleader action are present. (State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v.

Pietak (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 600, 612-613.) Once any disputed funds have been interpled, the action “ ‘proceed[s] for the determination of the rights of the various claimaints to the property which is then in the custody of the court.’” (City of Morgan Hill, supra, 71 Cal.App.4th at 1126-1127 [citation omitted].) Plaintiff deposited $100,000 with the Court and on October 12, 2025, was discharged from liability and dismissed from the action on October 10, 2025. This left the matter to proceed between JPC and Mintzer with respect to the interpled funds.

Mintzer’s default was entered on JPC’s cross-complaint on December 31, 2025. Mintzer’s motion to set aside the default was denied on May 7, 2026. Mintzer remains in

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV009122: CHICAGO TITLE COMPANY, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION vs JEFFREY PANG & COMPANY, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, et al. 06/04/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One in Department 16D

default. As Mintzer’s default has been entered and not yet set aside, the Court has lost jurisdiction to address any action by the defaulted defendant other than a motion to vacate entry of default. (See, e.g. W. A. Rose Co. v. Municipal Court for Oakland- Piedmont Judicial Dist. (1959) 176 Cal. App. 2d 67, 72.) “[T]he entry of the default terminates [the defaulting defendant’s] rights to take any further affirmative steps in the litigation until either the default is set aside or a default judgment is entered.” (City of Riverside v.

Horspool (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 670, 681 (citing Garcia v. Politis (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 1474, 1479; Devlin v. Kearny Mesa Amc/Jeep/Renault (1984) 155 Cal.App.3d 381, 385).) “Upon the failure of the defendant to answer the complaint within the time allowed by law, and upon the entry of default, in the absence of fraud, the right of the defendant to participate in the litigation is terminated, and the subsequent filing of an answer or demurrer on his part is unauthorized and void, unless upon proceedings duly had, the default is first set aside. . . .” (Forbes v.

Cameron Petroleums, Inc. (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 257, 262-63 (citing cases).) Where “defendants' default had already been entered, they had no standing to file any responsive pleading without first obtaining relief from the default.” (Id. at 263.)

In short, “a party who is in default is barred from further participation in the proceedings.” (Siry Investment, L.P. v. Farkhondehpour (2022) 13 Cal. 5th 333, 343.) JPC cites no authority indicating a party in default who has thereby lost the right to participate in the action may nevertheless be compelled to participate by responding to discovery.

The motion is therefore denied without prejudice. JPC may re-file the motion in the event that Mintzer’s default is set aside.

The Court did not consider Mintzer’s opposition as Mintzer currently has no ability to participate in the action apart from seeking relief from default.

JPC’s request for sanctions is denied as the motion was denied.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312 or other notice is required.