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. 07/16/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One in Department 16D

at https://saccourt.ca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/227/639084034465370000.

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 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 granted.

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,

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV009122: CHICAGO TITLE COMPANY, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION vs JEFFREY PANG & COMPANY, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, et al. 07/16/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One in Department 16D

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 v. Brown (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 1119, 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. The parties have since stipulated to set aside Mintzer’s default and the Court entered an order approving the stipulation on June 26, 2026.

While the Court’s original tentative ruling for June 4, 2026, indicated that the motion would be denied because Mintzer was in default with respect to JPC’s cross-complaint, at oral argument, JPC argued that the subject discovery was not limited to the cross-complaint and that Mintzer’s default was not entered as to the original interpleader complaint. The Court vacated the tentative ruling and continued the matter to this date. Moreover, as indicated above, since that time, Mintzer’s default as to the cross-complaint has been set aside.

Here, JPC served the subject interrogatories by mail on October 14, 2025. Mintzer’s responses were therefore due on November 18, 2025. There is no dispute that Mintzer did not serve any responses. Indeed, while Mintzer opposes the motion, he confirms that he still has not served any responses. Rather he contends that various circumstances prevented him from timely responding. Specifically, he contends that JPC’s cross-complaint was improperly served, JPC’s counsel was busy, JPC’s counsel’s father was unwell, and more. Mintzer also contends that JPC failed to grant a reasonable extension to provide responses. However, Mintzer’s counsel never contacted JPC’s counsel until after the responses were due. (Hartnett Reply Decl. ¶ 3.)

Mintzer requests that he be granted time to file responses with objections. Where, as here, responses are not timely served, “[t]he party to whom the interrogatories are directed waives any right to exercise the option to produce writings under Section 2030.230, as well as any objection to the interrogatories, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 2018.010).” (CCP § 2030.290(a).) Thus, Mintzer

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV009122: CHICAGO TITLE COMPANY, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION vs JEFFREY PANG & COMPANY, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, et al. 07/16/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set One in Department 16D

has waived all objections. To the extent that Mintzer’s opposition requests relief from waiver, that request is denied. Relief from any waiver may only be granted “on motion”, not based on an opposition. (CCP § 2030.290(a) [emphasis added].) A leading treatise also provides, “A noticed motion for relief from waiver is required. (I.e., such relief cannot be granted ex parte, or where the only motion pending is a motion to compel.” (Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2024) ¶ 8:1033, emphasis in original.) Mintzer has not filed a motion for relief from waiver. Thus, Minzter’s request for relief from waiver is denied without prejudice to filing a noticed motion seeking such relief.

No later than July 30, 2026, Mintzer shall serve verified responses, without objections, to JPC’s form interrogatories (set one).

JPC’s request for sanctions is denied as the Court finds that sanctions would be unjust under the circumstances.

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