DEARY ENTERPRISES, INC. FORMERLY KNOWN AS NOR-CAL BEVERAGE CO., INC. vs BA SPORTS NUTRITION, LLC

25CV003178: DEARY ENTERPRISES, INC. FORMERLY KNOWN AS NOR-CAL BEVERAGE CO., INC. vs BA SPORTS NUTRITION, LLC 03/11/2026 Hearing on Motion for Stay of Proceedings in Department 25

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 Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615 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 25 Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept25 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 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

25CV003178: DEARY ENTERPRISES, INC. FORMERLY KNOWN AS NOR-CAL BEVERAGE CO., INC. vs BA SPORTS NUTRITION, LLC 03/11/2026 Hearing on Motion for Stay of Proceedings in Department 25

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.

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant’s Notice of Motion does not provide notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system, as required by Local Rule 1.06(D). Defendant’s counsel is directed to contact opposing counsel forthwith to advise counsel of Local Rule 1.06 and the Court’s tentative ruling procedure. If Defendant’s counsel is unable to contact opposing counsel prior to the hearing, Defendant’s counsel shall be available at the hearing, in person or remotely (telephonically or by video conference via Zoom as stated in the introductory notice to today’s tentative rulings), in the event opposing counsel appears without following the procedures set forth in Local Rule 1.06(B).

Defendant BA Sports Nutrition, LLC’s (“Defendant”) Motion to Stay Discovery Pending Resolution of Motion for Summary Judgement is ruled upon as follows.

Factual Background

This breach of contract case arises out of a business transaction between Defendant and Plaintiff Deary Enterprises, Inc. (“Plaintiff”). Plaintiff alleges that under the terms of the original agreement between the parties, Plaintiff was to produce, package, store, and ship certain products for Defendant. (Compl., ¶ 7.) The parties executed amendments to the agreement “regarding invoicing, production volume, term, fees, and storage, among others.” (Compl., ¶ 10.) The third amended agreement includes a volume of produce commitment and a shortfall fee. (Compl., ¶ 11.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendant failed to meet the volume commitment or pay the shortfall fee of $3,101,311. (Compl., ¶ 13.) Plaintiff’s complaint alleges a single cause of action for breach of contract.

Plaintiff has filed a motion for leave to file a First Amended Complaint to add a new defendant and to add a claim for Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations. This motion is set to be heard on May 13, 2026.

Defendant has filed a motion for summary judgment of Plaintiff’s claim, or in the alternative, summary adjudication. This motion is set to be heard on August 19, 2026.

This matter is currently set for trial on October 20, 2026.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV003178: DEARY ENTERPRISES, INC. FORMERLY KNOWN AS NOR-CAL BEVERAGE CO., INC. vs BA SPORTS NUTRITION, LLC 03/11/2026 Hearing on Motion for Stay of Proceedings in Department 25

Defendant now moves for an order staying all discovery pending resolution of Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, on the grounds that further discovery is unnecessary to the narrow contractual issue raised by Defendant’s motion for summary judgment and a discovery stay would conserve time and resources of the Court.

Discussion

Defendant cites to Britts v. Sup. Ct. (2006) 145 Cal. App. 4th 1112, 1123 for the premise that the Court has the discretion to manage discovery. Defendant further argues that pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2019.020(b), the Court may stay discovery in order to “establish the sequence and timing of discovery,” “for the convenience of parties and witnesses,” and “in the interests of justice.” Plaintiff opposes, arguing that the issues raised in Defendant’s motion for summary adjudication are not as straightforward as Defendant presents in the instant motion, and that the law does not support the imposition of a temporary stay.

Courts have authority to stay civil proceedings “in the interests of justice and to promote judicial efficiency.” (Freiberg v. City of Mission Viejo (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1484,1489, citing Walker v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 257, 266; Rice v. Superior Court (1982) 136 Cal.App.3d 81, 89.

The Court is not persuaded that Defendant has shown that such a stay is warranted here. Defendant has not convinced the Court that discovery is not necessary to resolve this case in its entirety. As an initial matter, Plaintiff has presented persuasive arguments that the language of the contract by itself may not resolve the issue, thus requiring additional evidence (and thus, discovery). Further, Plaintiff is seeking to amend its pleading to add an additional cause of action that does not appear to be at issue in the pending motion for summary judgment.

Trial is only two months after the motion for summary judgment. This is not sufficient time to conduct discovery on other discrete issues which may be required for trial. Nor has Defendant cited to any authority which would persuade the Court that such relief is warranted here. The fact that the Court has the discretion to stay discovery pending resolution of the motion for summary judgment does not establish that such a stay is warranted.

Therefore, based on the foregoing, Defendant’s motion to stay is DENIED.

The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312 or further notice is required.