Motion for Order Striking Claim
25CV003376: CLAIM OF: LEMMIE NEWHOUSE 08/05/2026 Hearing on Motion for Order Striking Claim in Department 8D
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 Department 8D Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-7719 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 8D Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16113421868 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 1342 1868. 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 on the Court Reporter Services webpage available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://saccourt.ca.gov/general-information/court-reporter-services-transcripts. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://saccourt.ca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/227/639084034465370000.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
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 Courts 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
25CV003376: CLAIM OF: LEMMIE NEWHOUSE 08/05/2026 Hearing on Motion for Order Striking Claim in Department 8D
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 Reporters Office and an official reporter will be provided.
*** EFFECTIVE APRIL 13, 2026, THIS DEPARTMENT HAS MOVED TO THE TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE COURTHOUSE LOCATED AT 500 G STREET IN SACRAMENTO, CA 95814. ALL HEARINGS NOTICED FOR DEPARTMENT 25 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 8D OF THE NEW COURTHOUSE. ***
TENTATIVE RULING
Petitioner People of the State of Californias (Petitioner) Motion for Order Striking Real Party in Interests Lemmie Newhouse (Claimant) Claim Opposing Forfeiture for failure to comply with this Courts January 28, 2026 order compelling responses to requests for production of documents is UNOPPOSED and GRANTED.
The January 28, 2026 discovery order required Claimant to provide, no later than February 27, 2026, responses to requests for production of documents seeking documents relevant to the claim opposing forfeiture. According to the moving papers, Claimant has failed to provide the responses to requests for production of documents. (Soloman Decl. ¶ 10.) Petitioner now seeks an order imposing a terminating sanction striking Claimants claim.
Claimant failed to comply with the Courts order. The Court finds that the failure to comply is willful, justifying a terminating sanction. Petitioner cannot perform an analysis of legitimate versus illegitimate income without the discovery. (Soloman Decl. ¶¶ 8-9.)
Although no California cases have been decided on this point, in a related federal case, forfeiture for failure to comply with discovery orders was upheld, as it is presumed that dismissal is not an abuse of discretion if the party has the ability to comply with a discovery order but does not. (United States v. Reyes (6th Cir. 2002) 307 F.3d 451, 455.) Federal cases may properly be cited as persuasive, although not binding, authority. Moreover, federal case law is instructive in the area of forfeiture because the California forfeiture statute is patterned after the federal drug forfeiture statute. (Cf.
Health & Saf. Code, § 11470 et seq. with 21 U.S.C. § 881.) Thus, as noted above, Claimants failure to respond to discovery and failure to comply with the Courts order constitutes misuse of the discovery process. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.010, subds. (d), (g).) Bolstering this conclusion, it is to be observed that Health and Safety Code section 11488.4, subdivision (c)(3) provides that [T]he provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure shall apply to proceedings under this chapter unless otherwise inconsistent with the provisions or procedures set forth in this chapter. (See also Jauregi v.
Superior Court (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 931, 938.) Pretrial discovery according to standard civil procedure is available. (People v. 25651 Minoa
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
25CV003376: CLAIM OF: LEMMIE NEWHOUSE 08/05/2026 Hearing on Motion for Order Striking Claim in Department 8D
Drive (1992) 2 Cal.App.4th 787.) It would be absurd for the Legislature to have mandated the discovery provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure apply to such actions, yet not import the sanctions for failure to comply. (See, e.g., Gattuso v. Harte-Hanks Shoppers,Inc. (2007) 42 Cal. 4th 554.) In ordering terminating sanctions or not, the Court has broad discretion in the selection of the appropriate sanction to be applied under the factual circumstances.
Additionally, Claimant has filed no opposition to this motion. A partys failure to oppose a motion is construed as a concession on the merits of the motion. (See D.I. Chadbourne, Inc. v. Superior Court (1964) 60 Cal.2d 723, 728, fn. 4.)
Therefore, the motion is GRANTED. No judgment is entered at this time. The claim is stricken and the clerk is ordered to enter default on the petition. Petitioner is directed to proceed with default judgment prove-up on the petition pursuant to Health & Safety Code section 11488.5, subd. (b)(1).
The Court will sign the proposed order submitted with the motion.