PEREZ vs SCHAAL, et al.

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. *** EFFECTIVE APRIL 13, 2026, THIS DEPARTMENT HAS MOVED TO THE TANI G.

CANTIL-SAKAUYE COURTHOUSE LOCATED AT 500 G STREET IN SACRAMENTO, CA

25CV019484: PEREZ vs SCHAAL, et al. 07/28/2026 Hearing on Motion to Deem Request for Admissions Admitted in Department 16D

95814. ALL HEARINGS NOTICED FOR DEPARTMENT 53 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 16D OF THE NEW COURTHOUSE. PARTIES MAY CONTINUE TO APPEAR REMOTELY IN DEPARTMENT 16D UNLESS SPECIFICALLY ORDERED OTHERWISE. ***

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff’s notice motion does not provide notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system, as required by Local Rule 1.06, and does not provide the correct address for this Court. Plaintiff 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, along with the correct address for this Court. If plaintiff is unable to contact opposing counsel prior to the hearing, plaintiff is ordered to appear at the hearing in person, by Zoom or by telephone.

Plaintiff in pro per Perez’s motion to deem admitted those matters specified in his requests for admissions to defendant Media Leverage, Inc. is DENIED since (1) defendant Media Leverage, Inc. has already served before the hearing on this motion to deem admitted proposed responses to plaintiff’s requests for admissions and (2) this Court finds such responses from defendant Media Leverage, Inc. to be in “substantial compliance” with Code of Civil Procedure §2033.220.

Code of Civil Procedure §2033.280(c) provides that a court “shall make this order” deeming requests for admissions admitted “unless it finds that the party to whom the requests for admissions have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220.” (Underline added for emphasis.) This Court’s finding that defendant Media Leverage, Inc. has already served responses which are in “substantial compliance” with §2033.220 does not necessarily mean any of the individual responses are not deficient in any way or otherwise immune to a potential motion to compel further responses (after completion of the requisite meet-and-confer process (see, Code Civ.

Proc. §2033.290(b)(1))). Instead, the Court has merely evaluated the responses “in toto” rather than based on responses to individual requests (see, e.g., St. Mary v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 762, 779-780) and finds them, at a minimum, to be in “substantial compliance” with the general requirements of §2033.220. Accordingly, based on the plain language of §2033.280(c), this Court declines to grant the present motion to deem admitted.

To the extent moving plaintiff may contend defendant’s responses to the requests for admissions are deficient for any reason, plaintiff remains free to file and serve an appropriate motion to compel only after completing the requisite meet-and-confer process “either in person, by telephone, or by videoconference,” as now expressly

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV019484: PEREZ vs SCHAAL, et al. 07/28/2026 Hearing on Motion to Deem Request for Admissions Admitted in Department 16D

required by the recently amended provisions of Code of Civil Procedure §2016.040(a). (Bold added for emphasis.)

The moving papers did include a request by plaintiff for an award of (mandatory) monetary sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure §2033.280(c) but the moving papers do not specify the amount of sanctions sought by plaintiff, nor did plaintiff include with his moving or reply papers any declaration which provides a basis on which this Court might ascertain the amount of sanctions to which plaintiff might otherwise be entitled. However, because the Court’s file indicates that plaintiff did pay a $60 filing fee in connection with this motion against defendant Media Leverage, Inc., the Court will award this amount to plaintiff.

Because plaintiff is currently acting in pro per, the Court finds that he has not incurred any attorney fees in connection with this motion which may be awarded here and thus, the Court’s award of monetary sanctions shall be limited to the $60 filing fee paid by plaintiff.

The above-cited monetary sanctions are to be paid by defendant Media Leverage, Inc. no later than 9/30/2026 and if not paid by that date, plaintiff may then prepare for the Court’s signature a formal order granting such sanctions, which order may thereafter be enforced in the same manner and with the same force and effect as a money judgment against defendant Media Leverage, Inc. (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”].)

Moving plaintiff 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.)