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

25CV005026: CERVANTES, et al. vs GENERAL MOTORS, LLC., et al. 05/07/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other for Compliance Pursuant to C.C.P. § 871.26; and Request for Sanctions in Department 16D

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 16D Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16146506749 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. 05/07/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other for Compliance Pursuant to C.C.P. § 871.26; and Request for Sanctions in Department 16D

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.

*** NOTICE: EFFECTIVE APRIL 13, 2026, THIS DEPARTMENT HAS MOVED TO THE TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE COURTHOUSE LOCATED AT 500 G. ST. SACRAMENTO, CA. ALL MOTIONS NOTICED FOR DEPARTMENT 53 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 16D 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. PARTIES MAY CONTINUE TO APPEAR REMOTELY IN DEPARTMENT 16D UNLESS SPECIFICALLY ORDERED OTHERWISE. ***

TENTATIVE RULING: Defendant General Motors, LLC’s motion for compliance pursuant to CCP § 871.26(c)(1) 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(c)(1) which provides in relevant part that “[w]ithin 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 . . . .” (CCP § 871.26(c)(1).) Defendant contends that Plaintiffs have refused to participate in their initial depositions. Defendant also moves for $1,500 in sanctions pursuant to Section 871.26(j)(1).

Defendant filed its answer to Plaintiffs’ complaint on June 11, 2025. That same day, Defendant noticed Plaintiffs’ depositions for July 25, 2025. (Burk Decl. ¶ 5, Exhs. B-1 and B-2.) When noticing Plaintiffs’ depositions, Defendant indicated that if Plaintiffs were “unavailable to appear at the depositions as noticed, please contact our office with a date to complete the deposition.” (Burk Decl. ¶ 4, Exh. A.)

Plaintiffs objected to the depositions on July 21, 2025. Plaintiffs objected to the date and time of the deposition because Plaintiffs and/or Plaintiffs’ counsel was unavailable on that date. (Burk Decl. ¶ 6, Exhs C-1, C-2.) Plaintiffs’ counsel further indicated that “Plaintiff will meet and confer with Defendant to reschedule the deposition on a date and time that is mutually convenient.” (Id.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV005026: CERVANTES, et al. vs GENERAL MOTORS, LLC., et al. 05/07/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other for Compliance Pursuant to C.C.P. § 871.26; and Request for Sanctions in Department 16D

Defendant’s counsel avers that they attempted to identify a date for Plaintiffs’ deposition via email on July 17, 2025, July 22, 2025, and August 7, 2025 but that Defendant did not receive any response to its follow-up requests. (Burk Decl. ¶ 7.) On October 8, 2025, Defendant’s counsel emailed Plaintiffs’ counsel indicating that the 120-day deadline for their depositions was October 9, 2025 and that if Plaintiffs did not provide a response by October 10, 2025, Defendant would seek Court intervention. (Id. ¶ 8, Exh. E.) Plaintiffs did not respond. The instant motion followed.

Plaintiffs oppose the motion on the sole basis that the motion is barred because Defendant failed to conduct their depositions within the 120-day timeframe set forth in CCP § 871.26(c)(1).) That is, Plaintiffs do not contest the facts that Defendant promptly noticed their depositions, that Defendant repeatedly attempted to meet and confer to set mutually agreeable dates, and that Plaintiffs were the ones that repeatedly failed to respond to Defendant’s multiple meet-and-confer correspondence. Astonishingly, after repeatedly failing to respond to Defendant’s attempts to secure agreeable deposition dates, Plaintiffs now contend that Defendant’s motion should be denied because Defendant did not act sooner to obtain relief against Plaintiff’s own failure to cooperate in that Defendant did not file the instant motion until after the 120-day timeframe.

While it is undisputed that Defendant did not complete Plaintiffs’ depositions within 120 days from filing its answer (again, due to Plaintiffs’ non-cooperation), CCP § 871.26(c) does not contain deadlines for bringing a motion to compel compliance with the statute. This is to be contrasted with other discovery statutes such as CCP § 2030.300 which requires a motion to compel further responses to be noticed within 45 days of the service of verified responses. (CCP § 2030.300(c).) No such similar expressed deadline appears in CCP § 871.26

Moreover, on June 11, 2025, the same day it filed its answer, Defendant noticed Plaintiffs’ depositions for July 25, 2025. Plaintiffs objected to the date and time but then failed to provide any alternate dates despite promising to do so and despite Defendant’s multiple requests for dates, all of which were made within the 120-day timeframe. Again, it was Plaintiffs’ own conduct that prevented their depositions from being taken within the 120-day timeframe set forth in CCP § 871.26(c)(1), not any conduct on part of Defendant.

Notably, if Plaintiffs’ argument were accepted, a party subject to the expedited discovery and resolution procedures in CCP § 871.26 could simply not comply with their obligations and once the timeframe for doing so expired, the other party would have no recourse. There is no indication that CCP § 871.26, was intended to reward a party’s non-compliance once the 120-day period ends. Indeed, Plaintiffs’ argument, if accepted, would effectively render the statute meaningless and allow a party to “agree” to depositions (or production of other required discovery) to take place near the end of the 120-day period, then refuse to appear (or produce such discovery) leaving no time for a motion to compel within the 120-day period.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV005026: CERVANTES, et al. vs GENERAL MOTORS, LLC., et al. 05/07/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other for Compliance Pursuant to C.C.P. § 871.26; and Request for Sanctions in Department 16D

Plaintiffs were required to appear for an initial deposition within 120 days of the filing of Defendant’s responsive pleading. Plaintiffs failed to do so.

Defendant’s motion to compel compliance pursuant to CCP § 871.26(c)(1) is granted. The deposition of Plaintiffs shall proceed no later than May 28, 2026, unless a later date is agreed upon by both parties.

Defendant’s request for a $1,500 sanction against Plaintiffs’ counsel pursuant to CCP § 871.26(j)(1) is denied. CCP § 871.26 (j)(1) 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: (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].)

Defendant’s motion does relate to any alleged failure by Plaintiffs to comply with the document production requirement prescribed in subdivision (b). While CCP § 871.26(j)(2) provides for sanctions in connection with a failure to comply with the deposition requirements in CCP § 871.26(c), Defendant did not seek sanctions pursuant to (j)(2). Defendant’s notice of motion, which controls, only refers to CCP § 871.26(j)(1). (Not. 1:14.) The request for sanction is therefore denied.

The 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 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.