COBB vs C&H TRUST DEED SERVICE, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, et al.

24CV000748: COBB vs C&H TRUST DEED SERVICE, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, et al. 06/05/2025 Hearing on Motion for Terminating Sanctions 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 53/54 Zoom Link is https://saccourt-cagov.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 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

24CV000748: COBB vs C&H TRUST DEED SERVICE, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, et al. 06/05/2025 Hearing on Motion for Terminating Sanctions in Department 53

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: Defendants Jessica Carbajal’s unopposed motion for terminating sanctions and monetary sanctions is ruled upon as follows.

On December 4, 2024, this Court granted Defendant’s unopposed motion to compel Plaintiff Beverly Cobb’s responses to form and special interrogatories and requests for production. Plaintiff was ordered to serve verified responses, without objections, no later than December 18, 2024. No sanctions were imposed in connection with the motion to compel responses. Defendant’s requests for admissions were also deemed admitted. Sanctions in the amount of $760 were imposed against Plaintiff in connection with the motion to deem matters admitted.

According to Defendant, Plaintiff has not served the Court ordered responses or paid the $760 in sanctions.

For misuse of the discovery process, including as is the case here, disobeying a court order to provide discovery, the Court may impose a terminating sanction by one of the following: an order striking out the pleadings or parts of the pleadings of any party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process or an order dismissing the action, or any part of the action, of that party. (See, e.g. CCP §§ 2023.010(d) and (g), 2023.030(d)(1) and (3).) The Court has broad discretion in selecting the appropriate sanctions under the factual circumstances before it. (Cedars-Sinai Medical Center v. Superior Court (1998) 18 Cal.4th 1, 12.)

The Court finds that the drastic remedy of terminating sanctions is not warranted at this time. “The sanctions the court may impose are such as are suitable and necessary to enable the party seeking discovery to obtain the objects of the discovery he seeks but the court may not impose sanctions which are designed not to accomplish the objects of the discovery but to impose punishment.” (Caryl Richards, Inc. v. Superior Court (1961) 188 Cal. App. 2d 300, 304.) 'The penalty should be appropriate to the dereliction, and should not exceed that which is required to protect the interests of the party entitled to but denied discovery. (Deyo v.

Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal. App. 3d 771, 793) The discovery sanction cannot put the propounding party in a better position than they would have been in if they had received the discovery. (Puritan Insurance Co. v Superior Court (1985) 171 Cal. App.3d 877, 884.)

The motion is premised on Plaintiff’s failure to serve responses to Defendant’s form and

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV000748: COBB vs C&H TRUST DEED SERVICE, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, et al. 06/05/2025 Hearing on Motion for Terminating Sanctions in Department 53

special interrogatories and requests for production, as ordered by the Court on December 4, 2024. The Court finds that the failure to comply with the discovery order in this case does not yet justify the drastic remedy of terminating sanctions. Other than the subject order related to the instant motion there are no earlier discovery orders which Plaintiff has failed to comply with respect to moving Defendant. No sanctions have been previously imposed for the failure to provide the responses. The Court only imposed a modest amount of monetary sanctions in connection with the separate motion to deem matters admitted.

The failure to pay the monetary sanctions imposed in connection with the separate motion to deem matters admitted is not a basis for a discovery sanction. Indeed, in the discovery context, terminating sanctions are never justified based on a failure to pay a monetary sanction. (Newland v. Superior Court (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 608, 615.) To the extent that Defendant complains that Plaintiff failed to pay the sanctions, any remedy is through the Enforcement of Judgment Laws. A fees award is enforced as a money judgment through the Enforcement of Judgment Laws (CCP § 680.010 et. seq.) even where there is no judgment. (Lucky United Properties Investment, Inc. v.

Lee (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 125, 143-144 [citing Newland, supra, at 615].)

Imposing the terminating sanction requested here would be punitive in light of the above circumstances and would be inconsistent with the incremental approach to discovery sanctions.

However, given the delay in complying with the Court’s discovery orders, the Court finds a modest amount of monetary sanctions is appropriate. Defendant is awarded monetary sanctions from Plaintiff Beverly Cobb in the amount of $760 ($350/hr x 2 hrs + $60 filing fee). The monetary sanction is to be paid on or before July 5, 2025. 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, supra, 40 Cal.App.4th at 615 [“monetary sanction orders are enforceable through the execution of judgment laws”].)

Finally, the Court will again order Plaintiff Beverly Cobb to serve responses to Defendant’s form and special interrogatories requests for production (sets one). The responses shall be served no later than June 18, 2025. Plaintiff’s failure to comply with this order may lead to an inference that Plaintiff has abandoned the action against Defendant and may result in the imposition of more severe sanctions.

The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312 or further notice is required.