THOMAS vs GENERAL MOTORS, LLC, et al.

25CV009380: THOMAS vs GENERAL MOTORS, LLC, et al. 08/17/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other for Compliance Pursuant to CCP Section 871.26 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

25CV009380: THOMAS vs GENERAL MOTORS, LLC, et al. 08/17/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other for Compliance Pursuant to CCP Section 871.26 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.

Plaintiff Roberto Thomas (“Plaintiff”) filed this Lemon Law action on April 18, 2025. On July 31, 2025, Defendant filed a demurrer. Defendant’s moving papers are somewhat unclear, but it appears that Defendant served a meet and confer letter along with its demurrer that included a

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV009380: THOMAS vs GENERAL MOTORS, LLC, et al. 08/17/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other for Compliance Pursuant to CCP Section 871.26 in Department 8C

notice of deposition scheduling Plaintiff’s deposition for August 27, 2025 pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 871.26.

On August 20, 2025, Plaintiff 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 September 23 and November 4, 2025, Defendant’s counsel emailed Plaintiff’s counsel in an effort to schedule Plaintiff’s deposition. Plaintiff’s counsel did not immediately respond to these inquiries. On December 22, 2025, Plaintiff’s counsel offered February 2, 2026. On January 6, 2026, Defendant’s counsel accepted Plaintiff’s offer. On January 22, 2026, Defendant served an amended deposition notice scheduling Plaintiff’s deposition for February 2, 2026. On January 30, 2026, Plaintiff served objections to the amended deposition notice, which stated that due to scheduling conflicts, Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel were no longer available on the noticed date.

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, Plaintiff contends that since Defendant filed its motion on February 13, 2026, the parties agreed to conduct Plaintiff’s deposition on August 13, 2026. Plaintiff also contends that he has shown good cause to avoid sanctions because Defendant unilaterally noticed Plaintiff’s deposition initially, and because Defendant occasionally cited to the incorrect subdivision of section 871.26.

Plaintiff’s arguments are rejected. First, the motion is not mooted by the scheduling of Plaintiff’s deposition on an agreed upon date, particularly since Defendant is also requesting sanctions under section 871.26(j)(2). (See Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 408-409; see also Code Civ. Proc. § 1005.5 [motion “is

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV009380: THOMAS vs GENERAL MOTORS, LLC, et al. 08/17/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other for Compliance Pursuant to CCP Section 871.26 in Department 8C

deemed to have been made and to be pending before the court for all purposes, upon the due service and filing of the notice of motion”].) Second, Plaintiff has not shown good cause. Section 871.26(c)(1) gives Defendant the right to conduct Plaintiff’s deposition within 120 days after filing a responsive pleading. Pursuant to this right, Defendant noticed Plaintiff’s deposition on a date less than 120 days after Defendant filed its demurrer. While this date was unilaterally selected, Plaintiff’s counsel did not meaningfully engage with Defendant’s counsel to schedule Plaintiff’s deposition within the 120-day window. The record before the Court shows that Plaintiff’s counsel did not offer any alternative dates until December 22, 2025, which is after the 120-day window expired. Plaintiff’s actions after the 120-day window expired are not relevant to the good cause inquiry.

Accordingly, Defendant’s motion is GRANTED.

Unless Plaintiff appeared for his deposition on August 13, 2026 as indicated by the parties, Plaintiff shall appear for his deposition on September 16, 2026, or an alternative date agreed to by the parties in writing. Plaintiff’s 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.)