CERVANTES, et al. vs GENERAL MOTORS, LLC., et al.

25CV005026: CERVANTES, et al. vs GENERAL MOTORS, LLC., et al. 03/19/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other for Compliance Pursuant to C.C.P. 871.26 in Department 53

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 53 Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept53.54 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 4650 6749. 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

25CV005026: CERVANTES, et al. vs GENERAL MOTORS, LLC., et al. 03/19/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other for Compliance Pursuant to C.C.P. 871.26 in Department 53

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 General Motors, LLC’s motion for compliance pursuant to CCP § 871.26 is CCP § 871.26 is granted.

In this Lemon Law action, Defendant seeks an order compelling Plaintiffs Juan and Estefany Cervantes to comply with CCP § 871.26. Specifically, Defendant moves to compel Plaintiffs’ compliance with CCP § 871.26(b) which provides that “all parties shall, without awaiting a discovery request, provide to all other parties an initial disclosure and documents pursuant to subdivisions (f), (g), and (h).” (CCP § 871.26(b).) Defendant contends that Plaintiffs have failed to provide their initial disclosure and documents.

This matter was continued from February 3, 2026, based on Plaintiffs’ counsel’s request. Specifically, in connection with the original hearing date, Plaintiffs did not file an opposition and instead Plaintiffs’ counsel filed a declaration requesting a continuance to allow additional time to re-establish contact with Plaintiffs and complete the initial disclosures and document production required by CCP § 871.26. The Court granted Plaintiffs’ request and also ruled that Plaintiffs were permitted to file an opposition pursuant to CCP § 1005(b) based on the new hearing date.

Based on the March 19, 2026, hearing date, any supplemental opposition was due by March 6, 2026. Despite their request for a continuance and the Court’s granting of a continuance, Plaintiffs still did not file anything since the Court’s February 3, 2026 order, much less a supplemental opposition. Thus, because Plaintiff did not file any opposition in connection with the original hearing, the motion remains unopposed. A party’s 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, n.4.)

No later than April 2, 2026, Plaintiffs shall provide to Defendant the initial disclosure and documents described in CCP § 871.26(f)-(g).

Defendant’s request for mandatory sanctions pursuant to CCP § 871.26(j)(1) is granted. That section provides that “[u]nless 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:

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV005026: CERVANTES, et al. vs GENERAL MOTORS, LLC., et al. 03/19/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other for Compliance Pursuant to C.C.P. 871.26 in Department 53

(1) A one-thousand-five-hundred-dollar ($1,500) sanction against the plaintiff’s attorney or two-thousand-five-hundred-dollar ($2,500) sanction against the defense attorney respectively, paid within 15 business days for failure to comply with the document production requirements as prescribed in subdivision (b). (CCP § 871.26(j)(1) [emphasis added].

The Court must impose sanctions pursuant to this section unless Plaintiffs show good cause. Having failed to oppose the motion, despite having been granted a continuance to do so, Plaintiffs failed to show good cause. Thus, sanctions in the amount of $1,500 against Plaintiffs’ attorney are mandatory and are granted. Plaintiffs’ counsel shall pay to Defendant a mandatory monetary sanction in the amount of $1,500. The monetary sanction is to be paid on or before April 19, 2026. If the sanction is not paid by that date, Defendant may prepare for the Court’s signature a formal order granting the sanctions, which may itself be enforced in the same manner and with the same force and effect as a money judgment. (Newland v. Superior Court (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 608, 615 [“monetary sanction orders are enforceable through the execution of judgment laws”].)

The notice of hearing does not provide notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system as required by Local Rule 1.06(D). Defendant’s counsel is ordered to notify Plaintiffs’ counsel immediately of the tentative ruling system and to be available at the hearing in person, via Zoom or by telephone, in the event Plaintiffs’ counsel appears without following the procedures set forth in Local Rule 1.06(B).

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