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

25CV005026: CERVANTES, et al. vs GENERAL MOTORS, LLC., et al. 08/20/2026 Hearing on Motion for Terminating 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 Department 16D Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-3056 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-cagov.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 on the Court Reporter Services webpage available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://saccourt.ca.gov/general-information/court-reporter-servicestranscripts. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://saccourt.ca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/227/639084034465370000.

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

25CV005026: CERVANTES, et al. vs GENERAL MOTORS, LLC., et al. 08/20/2026 Hearing on Motion for Terminating Sanctions in Department 16D

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 forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

*** EFFECTIVE APRIL 13, 2026, THIS DEPARTMENT HAS MOVED TO THE TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE COURTHOUSE LOCATED AT 500 G STREET IN SACRAMENTO, CA 95814. ALL HEARINGS NOTICED FOR DEPARTMENT 53 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 16D OF THE NEW COURTHOUSE. ***

TENTATIVE RULING: Defendant General Motors, LLC’s motion for terminating sanctions, issue/evidence sanctions is ruled upon as follows.

On May 7, 2026, this Court granted Defendant’s motion to compel Plaintiffs Juan and Estefany Cervantes to comply with CCP § 871.26(c)(1) which provides 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).) The Court ordered Plaintiffs to appear for deposition no later than May 28, 2026, unless a later date was agreed upon by both parties. Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions was denied on the basis that Defendant moved for sanctions pursuant to CCP § 871.26(j)(1) which does not apply to any failure to appear for the deposition provided in CCP § 871.26(c)(1).)

Defendant now moves for sanctions on the basis that Plaintiffs did not appear for the deposition by May 28, 2026. The instant motion was filed on June 1, 2026. Plaintiffs oppose the motion on the basis that Plaintiffs’ counsel has not been able to contact Plaintiffs and secure a date for the depositions. Plaintiffs’ counsel requests that the motion be continued so that counsel can file a motion to withdraw.

As support for the motion, Defendant cites to CCP § 2025.450(h) and CCP § 871.26(j)(3).

While Defendant seeks terminating sanctions in the form of a dismissal with prejudice, CCP § 871.26(j)(3), does not support that request. That section provides that “[f]or a plaintiff’s repeated noncompliance with subdivision (b), (c), or (d), a court shall order the case dismissed without prejudice and the plaintiff’s attorney to be responsible for costs awarded to the manufacturer.” (CCP § 871.26(j)(3).) The Court cannot order a dismissal with prejudice pursuant to this section. Defendant did not request a dismissal without prejudice pursuant to CCP § 871.26(j)(3) in either its notice of motion or the memorandum of points and authorities. While Defendant did make such a request for

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV005026: CERVANTES, et al. vs GENERAL MOTORS, LLC., et al. 08/20/2026 Hearing on Motion for Terminating Sanctions in Department 16D

the first time in reply, the Court declines to address that request given Defendant’s failure to properly request a dismissal without prejudice pursuant to CCP § 871.26(j)(3) in the notice of motion.

In addition, CCP § 2025.450(h), which provides that a Court may order issue, evidentiary or terminating sanctions if a party fails to comply with an order compelling attendance at a deposition, also does not apply. That section only applies with respect to an order granting a motion to compel attendance at a deposition pursuant to CCP § 2025.450 where a party has failed to proceed with a noticed deposition. The Court’s May 7, 2026, order was issued pursuant to CCP § 871.26(c)(1) for failing to appear for the limited two-hour initial deposition required by CCP § 871.26(c)(1).

The Court’s order was not based on CCP § 2025.450. CCP § 871.26 provides for monetary sanctions against a plaintiff’s counsel for failure to comply with CCP § 871.26(c)(1), and a dismissal without prejudice for repeated failures to comply with that section. CCP § 871.26 does not provide for terminating sanctions in the form of a dismissal with prejudice, or evidentiary and issue sanctions against a plaintiff. By contrast, that section does provide for specific evidentiary sanctions against a defendant for repeated failures to comply with CCP § 871.26. (CCP § 871.26(j)(4).)

Moreover, CCP § 871.26 makes clear that the disclosures required by that section are not governed by the Discovery Act. Indeed, discovery pursuant to the Discovery Act is stayed until a mediation is concluded. “If the case is not resolved at the conclusion of mediation, standard discovery procedures prescribed in Title 4 (commencing with Section 2016.010) of Part 4 of the Code of Civil Procedures shall apply, including an additional deposition of the plaintiff and the defendant and, if the defendant is not a natural person, the person who is most qualified to testify on the defendant’s behalf.” (CCP § 871.26(e).)

Thus, any sanctions for failing to comply with the Court’s May 7, 2026 order are governed by CCP § 871.26, not CCP § 2025.450(h) or CCP § 2023.030.

While Defendant also requested monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,500, the notice of motion fails to indicate the statutory basis for that request. However, in the memorandum of points and authorities, Defendant only refers to CCP § 2023.030 as a basis for the monetary sanctions. As just discussed above, the Discovery Act has no application to any non-compliance with CCP § 871.26. Defendant did not request monetary sanctions pursuant to CCP § 871.26(j)(3). Again, it was not until reply that Defendant requested costs pursuant to CCP § 871.26(j)(3).

Defendant’s motion is denied. The denial is without prejudice to a motion seeking the sanctions available pursuant to CCP § 871.26 for any continued non-compliance by Plaintiffs.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV005026: CERVANTES, et al. vs GENERAL MOTORS, LLC., et al. 08/20/2026 Hearing on Motion for Terminating Sanctions in Department 16D

3.1312 or other notice is required.