Renita Williams vs. Equity Management, Inc

34-2023-00336240-CU-PO-GDS: Renita Williams vs. Equity Management, Inc 07/17/2026 Hearing on Motion for Trial Preference in Department 17A

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE:

*** If oral arguments are requested or appearances are required, the hearing may be conducted in person or remotely via ZoomGov, which includes telephonic and teleconferencing options. No Court Call appearances will be permitted. If you choose to use Zoom you must use your first and last name on your ZoomGov account so the court can positively identify you. The Department 17A ZoomLink is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16173813009 and the ZoomGov ID is: 161 7381 3009. Appearances via videoconference using the above link are preferred. To appear on ZoomGov by phone, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the ZoomGov ID referenced above, available phone commands include *6 to mute/unmute or *9 to raise your hand. If you experience issues joining your hearing, please contact the clerk in Department 17A at (916) 874- 5487 for assistance.

Please take notice that effective April 13, 2026, the Presiding Judge Law & Motion calendar has been moved to Department 17A at the Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye Courthouse, the Honorable Lawrence G. Brown presiding. The new courthouse is located at 500 G Street, Sacramento, CA 95814.

Hon. Lawrence G. Brown Department 17A 916-874-5487 dept17A@saccourt.ca.gov ***

TENTATIVE RULING:

The Notice of Motion provides inaccurate information regarding the Court’s tentative ruling system. The tentative ruling system for the Law and Motion calendar in the Presiding Judge’s Department is governed by Local Rule 1.05(C)-(D), not Local Rule 1.06. In pertinent part, Local Rule 1.05 provides that all noticed motions in the Presiding Judge’s Department shall include the following language in the notice:

Pursuant to Local Rule 1.05, the Court will make a tentative ruling on the merits of this matter by 2:00 p.m., two court days before the hearing. The complete text of the tentative ruling may be accessed on the public portal. If the party does not have online access, they may call the dedicated phone number for the

34-2023-00336240-CU-PO-GDS: Renita Williams vs. Equity Management, Inc 07/17/2026 Hearing on Motion for Trial Preference in Department 17A

department as referenced in the local telephone directory and receive the tentative ruling. If you do not call the Court and the opposing party by 12:00 p.m. the court day before the hearing, no hearing will be held.

The moving party is directed to contact opposing parties and advise them of Local Rule 1.05 and the Court’s tentative ruling procedure.

Plaintiffs’ motion for trial setting preference under Code of Civil Procedure section 36, subdivision (b) is GRANTED.

Plaintiffs in all three of the consolidated actions move for trial preference under Code of Civil Procedure section 36, subdivision (b) on the basis that 29 of the 95 named Plaintiffs are under the age of 14 and have a substantial interest in the case as a whole. The consolidated actions concern current and former tenants’ claims of uninhabitability at a multi-family residential property located at 4719 50th Avenue, Sacramento, California (the “Property”). The consolidated actions concern 38 out of the Property’s 128 total units. Plaintiffs further state that the Defendants currently named in the consolidated actions are the essential parties to the action, and they have all been served and appeared.

Defendants Sidhant Dhir and Anil Kumar; Defendants Group XIII Properties, LP and Equity Management, Inc.; and Defendant Homeriver California Property Management Company filed oppositions filed to the motion. Their oppositions are premised upon the unavailability of their counsel to try the case in the next 120 days and/or prejudice from needing additional time to conduct discovery and file a dispositive motion before trial.

Under CCP section 36(b), “[a] civil action to recover damages for wrongful death or personal injury shall be entitled to preference upon the motion of any party to the action who is under 14 years of age unless the court finds that the party does not have a substantial interest in the case as a whole.” Unless the Court orders otherwise, such a motion must be “supported by a declaration. . . that all essential parties have been served with process or have appeared.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 36, subd. (c)(1).)

If the conditions for preference under this section are met, preference is mandatory, not discretionary. (Peters v. Superior Court (1989) 212 Cal.App.3d 218, 224.) Where preference is mandatory, “[t]he trial court has no power to balance the differing interests of opposing litigants in applying the provision.” (Swaithes v. Superior Court (1989) 212 Cal.App.3d 1082, 1085.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2023-00336240-CU-PO-GDS: Renita Williams vs. Equity Management, Inc 07/17/2026 Hearing on Motion for Trial Preference in Department 17A

Here, the Court finds that the conditions for mandatory preference under Code of Civil Procedure section 36(b) are met. It is undisputed that this is a personal injury case, that 29 of the named Plaintiffs are is under the age of 14, and that all essential parties had been served with process or appeared at the time the motion was filed. Further, the parties do not contest, and the Court finds, that the 29 minor Plaintiffs have a substantial interest in the case as a whole.

Additionally, the Court notes that since preference is mandatory in this case, the Court has no discretion to balance the interests of the various parties. The Court may not consider the potential prejudice to opposing Defendants with regards to discovery or trial preparation or the scheduling conflicts of their trial counsel.

For the stated reasons, the motion for trial preference is granted.

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 36, subdivision (f), trial must be scheduled on a date within 120 days of the hearing on the motion. The hearing on this motion is scheduled for July 17, 2026. Thus, trial must be scheduled on or before Monday, November 16, 2026. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 10, 12a, 36, subd. (f).)

The parties are ordered to appear at the hearing on this matter to select trial and mandatory settlement conference dates within the referenced timeframe since the earliest date for trial available through the Court’s Trial Setting Process is June 26, 2026.

The Court notes that to the extent Defendants Sidhant Dhir and Anil Kumar request in their opposition that if the Court grant the motion, trial of the 29 Plaintiffs under the age of 14 be severed from the remaining 66 Plaintiffs, such a request for affirmative relief must be made as a noticed motion. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 1003 [stating a request “for an order is a motion”].) The Court finds the same as to Defendant Homeriver California Property Management’s request in its opposition that the Court allow it to schedule a motion for summary judgment/adjudication within thirty days of trial. Defendant Homeriver California Property Management has not yet filed a dispositive motion and can pursue whatever procedural options it opines are necessary in the assigned Civil Home Court department should it do so.

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.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2023-00336240-CU-PO-GDS: Renita Williams vs. Equity Management, Inc 07/17/2026 Hearing on Motion for Trial Preference in Department 17A

*** This case has been assigned to Department 17A for hearing. In the event that either party requests a hearing the matter will be heard at 9:30 a.m. in Department 17A. Any party requesting an oral argument must contact the clerk at (916) 874-5487 and opposing counsel or parties in pro per by 12:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing. If a proper request for hearing is not made, this shall become the order of the Court.

Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government Code section 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 forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided. ***