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. 12/17/2025 Hearing on Motion for Terminating Sanctions in Department 25

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 25 Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept25 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 1342 1868. 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

24CV000748: COBB vs C&H TRUST DEED SERVICE, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, et al. 12/17/2025 Hearing on Motion for Terminating Sanctions in Department 25

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 Jessica Carbajal’s (“Defendant”) 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 (“Plaintiff”) 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.

After Plaintiff failed to serve the ordered responses or pay the monetary sanctions, Defendant moved for terminating sanctions. On June 5, 2025, the Court denied the motion for terminating sanctions, granting further monetary sanctions in the amount of $760. In its minute order, the Court stated:

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.

(Emphasis original.)

Defendant again moves for terminating and monetary sanctions, on the ground that Plaintiff has served only incomplete responses, which still included objections. (Anderson Decl., ¶¶ 10-11.) Plaintiff has filed an untimely opposition on December 9, 2025. The Court declines to consider Plaintiff’s untimely opposition. However, the Court notes that had it considered the opposition, it would not have affected the Court’s ruling.

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

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV000748: COBB vs C&H TRUST DEED SERVICE, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, et al. 12/17/2025 Hearing on Motion for Terminating Sanctions in Department 25

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. Code Civ. Proc. §§ 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.)

Here, Defendant acknowledges that responses were served on August 4, 2025. (Anderson Decl., ¶ 10.) While Defendant contends that these responses were improper and incomplete, Defendant has filed no motion to compel further responses.

Accordingly, 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.)

While Defendant’s motion is premised upon Plaintiff’s failure to comply with an order of this Court, Plaintiff has (untimely) complied with the order to serve responses to discovery, even if Defendant contends that those responses were insufficient and noncompliant with Court order. The Court is not convinced that terminating sanctions are appropriate where Plaintiff has served amended responses, in particular given that Defendant has not brought any motion to compel further responses. Imposing the terminating sanction requested here would be punitive in light of the above circumstances.

The Court notes that this denial is without prejudice to Defendant’s right to bring a motion in limine on the ground that Plaintiff failed to provide full and complete responses to the at issue discovery requests. No opinion is expressed here on such a motion, and the Court notes that the Notice of Motion does not request issue or evidentiary sanctions.

However, given the delay in complying with the Court’s discovery orders, the Court finds monetary sanctions are appropriate. Defendant is awarded monetary sanctions from Plaintiff Beverly Cobb in the requested amount of $2,335.00. The monetary sanction is

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV000748: COBB vs C&H TRUST DEED SERVICE, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, et al. 12/17/2025 Hearing on Motion for Terminating Sanctions in Department 25

to be paid on or before December 31, 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 v. Superior Court (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 608, 615 [“monetary sanction orders are enforceable through the execution of judgment laws”].)

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