DIAZ RODRIGUEZ, et al. vs GENERAL MOTORS, LLC., et al.

25CV005934: DIAZ RODRIGUEZ, et al. vs GENERAL MOTORS, LLC., et al. 08/17/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other for Compliance Pursuant to C.C.P. 871.26; and Request for Sanctions in Department 8C

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that any oral arguments regarding this tentative ruling will be heard at 1:30 p.m. in Department 8C in the Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye Courthouse at 500 G Street, Sacramento, CA, the Hon. Richard C. Miadich presiding.

Any party who wishes to contest the tentative ruling below must:

(1) request a hearing by calling the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line for Department 8C at (916) 874-8380, by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the noticed hearing date, and leave a voicemail 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 they have notified the opposing party of their intention to appear; and

(2) advise the opposing party of the location and time of hearing pursuant to Local Rule 1.06.

If a hearing is not requested by 4:00 p.m. on the Court day before the noticed hearing date, the tentative ruling will become the final order of the Court.

If a hearing is requested, the Court prefers in-person attendance by the parties. However, parties may appear by Zoom unless the Court specifically orders in-person attendance. Parties choosing to appear by Zoom are reminded, however, that a Zoom appearance is still a formal appearance before the Court. Parties appearing via Zoom should do so from a quiet location, free from undue distractions, and wear attire suitable for an in-person court appearance.

The parties may join the Zoom session for hearing on the tentative ruling by audio and/or video through the following link:

https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16039062174

SIP Address:

16039062174@sip.zoomgov.com

(833) 568-8864

25CV005934: DIAZ RODRIGUEZ, et al. vs GENERAL MOTORS, LLC., et al. 08/17/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other for Compliance Pursuant to C.C.P. 871.26; and Request for Sanctions in Department 8C

ID: 16039062174

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.

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 be 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 SACRAMENTO, CA. ALL MOTIONS NOTICED FOR DEPARTMENT 28 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 8C 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***

Defendant General Motors LLC’s (“Defendant”) motion for compliance pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 871.26 is ruled upon as follows.

Plaintiffs Ma Angelica Diaz Rodriguez and Juan Luna Mandujano (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed this Lemon Law action on March 13, 2025. On June 27, 2025, Defendant filed its Answer. In conjunction with the filing of the Answer, Defendant’s counsel sent Plaintiffs’ counsel a meet

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV005934: DIAZ RODRIGUEZ, et al. vs GENERAL MOTORS, LLC., et al. 08/17/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other for Compliance Pursuant to C.C.P. 871.26; and Request for Sanctions in Department 8C

and confer letter notifying her that since this action was filed after January 1, 2025, it is subject to the provisions enacted by the passage of Assembly Bill 1755. The letter sought to meet and confer regarding entering into a stipulated protective order regarding documents to be produced as part of initial disclosures required under Code of Civil Procedure section 871.26(b), Plaintiffs’ depositions pursuant to section 871.26(c)(1), and scheduling mediation as required under section 871.26(d). The letter included a deposition notice for Plaintiffs with a deposition date of July 21, 2025.

On July 18, 2025, Plaintiffs served objections to the deposition notice on the basis that the date was unilaterally noticed by Defendant. The objections stated that Plaintiff would meet and confer to reschedule the deposition.

On January 23, 2026, Defendant’s counsel emailed Plaintiffs’ counsel in an effort to schedule Plaintiffs’ depositions. Plaintiffs’ counsel did not respond to this inquiry.

Code of Civil Procedure section 871.26 governs civil actions filed after January 1, 2025 seeking restitution or replacement of a motor vehicle pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 871.20. (Code Civ. Proc. § 871.26, subds. (a), (l).) It is undisputed that section 871.26 applies to the present case. Code of Civil Procedure section 871.26(c)(1) provides, “Within 120 days after the filing of the answer or other responsive pleading, all parties have the right to conduct initial depositions, each not to exceed two hours, of the following deponents: (1) The plaintiff.” (Code Civ.

Proc. § 871.26(c)(1).) Subdivision (j)(2) states, “Unless the party failing to comply with this section shows good cause, notwithstanding any other law and in addition to any other sanctions imposed pursuant to this chapter, a court shall impose sanctions as follows: (2) A one-thousandfive-hundred-dollar ($1,500) sanctions against the plaintiff’s attorney paid within 15 business days for failure to comply with the provisions relating to depositions as prescribed in subdivision (c).” (Code Civ. Proc. § 871.26(j)(2).)

In opposition, Plaintiffs contend that the reason they did not appear for deposition and that Plaintiffs’ counsel did not provide alternative dates is because Plaintiffs’ counsel has lost contact with Plaintiffs. However, Plaintiffs’ counsel offers little in the way of specifics on this communication breakdown with Plaintiffs, such as when Plaintiffs’ counsel last had contact with Plaintiffs and what specific efforts were made to contact Plaintiffs within the 120-day timeframe during which Plaintiffs were obligated to appear for their depositions.

Indeed, there is no indication of any efforts made before October 24, 2025, the last day for Plaintiffs to sit for their depositions in compliance with section 871.26. Moreover, there is no indication that Plaintiffs’ counsel ever informed Defendant’s counsel that the failure to provide alternative dates was due to the lack of contact with Plaintiffs. On this record, the Court cannot conclude that Plaintiffs’ counsel has acted diligently, and thus cannot find good cause. Plaintiffs also request a

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV005934: DIAZ RODRIGUEZ, et al. vs GENERAL MOTORS, LLC., et al. 08/17/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other for Compliance Pursuant to C.C.P. 871.26; and Request for Sanctions in Department 8C

continuance to October 19, 2026 so that Plaintiffs’ counsel can either establish contact with Plaintiffs and schedule the depositions or move to withdraw. But it is unclear what this would accomplish. Plaintiffs have still violated section 871.26(c)(1), even if the deposition is scheduled within the next 60 days, and Plaintiffs have not established good cause for failing to appear during the 120-day window. Therefore, the request for a continuance is denied.

Accordingly, Defendant’s motion is GRANTED.

Plaintiffs shall appear for their depositions by no later than September 16, 2026, or an alternative date agreed to by the parties in writing. Plaintiffs’ counsel Strategic Legal Practices, APC is also ordered to pay monetary sanctions to Defendant’s counsel in the amount of $1,500 by no later than September 8, 2026. (Code Civ. Proc. § 871.26(j)(2).)

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1019.5; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1312.)