AHMED vs THE MAGNES MUSEUM FOUNDATION

22CV020147: AHMED vs THE MAGNES MUSEUM FOUNDATION (A) CORPORATION), et al. 08/26/2026 Hearing on Motion for Sanctions CRS# 929500505741 in Department 17

Tentative Ruling - 08/24/2026 Chad A. Stegeman

The Motion for Order Newmark & Company Real Estate, Inc.'s and Newmark Group, Inc.'s Notice of Motion for Order to Show Cause re Contempt or Alternatively for Terminating Sanctions filed by NEWMARK GROUP, INC. (a corporation), NEWMARK & COMPANY REAL ESTATE, INC. (a corporation) on 03/19/2026 is Denied.

The Motion of Defendants Newmark & Company Real Estate Inc. and Newmark Group, Inc. (“Defendants”) for an Order to Show Cause re Contempt or Alternatively, for Terminating Sanctions is DENIED. At the time of this Ruling, no Reply has been received or filed. LEGAL STANDARD Under Code of Civil Procedure Section 1209 et seq., parties and/or their counsel may be held in contempt for a number of acts or omissions, including but not limited to: abuse of the process or proceedings of the court; disobedience of any lawful judgment, order, or process of the court; and any other unlawful interference with the process or proceedings of a court.

A party may be held in contempt if it (1) “entertained an ulterior motive in using this process”, and (2) “committed a willful act in a wrongful manner.” (Coleman v. Gulf Ins. Group (1986) 41 Cal.App.3d 782, 792.) The proponent of the contempt has the burden of proving every element necessary to show that contempt occurred. “ ‘The facts essential to jurisdiction for a contempt proceeding are '(1) the making of the order; (2) knowledge of the order; (3) ability of the respondent to render compliance; (4) willful disobedience of the order.’ [Citations.]”' (Board of Supervisors v.

Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1724, 1736, quoting In re Liu (1969) 273 Cal.App.2d 135, 140-141.)

DISCUSSION CCP § 1209(a)(5) provides that “[d]isobedience of any lawful judgment, order, or process of the court[,]” is punishable by the court's contempt authority. However, based on the record before the court, there is insufficient evidence to conclude that Plaintiff Saba Ahmed (“Plaintiff”)’s actions meet the standard of bad faith, frivolity, or dilatory intent required to justify holding her in contempt for either her conceded failure to produce documents and respond to discovery or delay in paying sanctions as ordered by this Court in both its March 13 and November 20, 2025 Orders granting in part Defendants’ Motions to Compel. 22CV020147: AHMED vs THE MAGNES MUSEUM FOUNDATION (A) CORPORATION), et al. 08/26/2026 Hearing on Motion for Sanctions CRS# 929500505741 in Department 17 Neither of these acts, pertaining to discovery, are sufficient to warrant an OSC re: contempt against Plaintiff, which as a quasi-criminal proceeding, has an extraordinarily high burden. (Ross v.

Superior Court (1977) 19 Cal.3d 899, 913.) Nor do Defendants provide any citations to case authority supporting instances in which it is appropriate to grant an OSC re Contempt in said circumstances. Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion is DENIED. There is also insufficient evidence to issue terminating sanctions in the alternative. In light of Defendants’ lack of a Reply, it is unclear if Plaintiff has since fully complied with the Court’s prior Orders granting in part Defendants’ prior discovery motions.

Although Plaintiff does not attach any supporting declaration or evidence, Plaintiff represents that she paid the outstanding $660 sanctions on July 28, 2026 and that she will provide verified responses to the discovery requests at issue "well before the hearing[.]” (Oppo., p. 2:5-7.) Courts have repeatedly held that the court's authority to issue a terminating sanction “should be exercised only in extreme situations, such as where the conduct was clear and deliberate and no lesser sanction would remedy the situation.” (Crawford v.

JP Morgan Chase Bank, NA (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 1265, 1271; accord Lyons v. Wickhorst (1986) 42 Cal.3d 911, 971, 917; Slesinger v. Walt Disney Co. (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 736, 75; Del Junco v. Hufnagel (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 789, 799.) Generally, the trial court may terminate a party's action as a sanction for discovery abuse “after considering the totality of the circumstances: [the] conduct of the party to determine if the actions were willful; the detriment to the propounding party; and the number of formal and informal attempts to obtain the discovery.” (Lang v.

Hochman (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 1225, 1246.)

This Court cannot make that determination from the record presented. Here, Defendants have failed to supply evidence of sufficient “misuse of the discovery process” that would merit terminating sanctions. Further, lesser sanctions are merited before terminating sanctions can even be considered. Defendant does not identify any other form of sanctions as an alternative and the Court therefore declines to consider them at this time. Thus, despite the lack of a verified basis for Plaintiff’s production of outstanding discovery responses, at this time, Defendants introduce insufficient evidence to support the required prima facie showing that they have been prejudiced by Plaintiff’s actions, particularly in light of their own delay in bringing this motion. (Oppo., pp. 2:21-3:2.) Defendants’ Motion is DENIED in its entirety.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

22CV020147: AHMED vs THE MAGNES MUSEUM FOUNDATION (A) CORPORATION), et al. 08/26/2026 Hearing on Motion for Sanctions CRS# 929500505741 in Department 17 If a party does not timely contest the foregoing Tentative Ruling and appear at the hearing, the Tentative Ruling will become the order of the court.

HOW DO I CONTEST A TENTATIVE RULING?

THROUGH ECOURT Notify the Court and all the other parties no later than 4:00 PM one court day before the scheduled hearing, and briefly identify the issues you wish to argue through the following steps: 1. Log into eCourt Public Portal 2. Case Search 3. Enter the Case Number and select “Search” 4. Select the Case Name 5. Select the Tentative Rulings Tab 6. Select “Click to Contest this Ruling” 7. Enter your Name and Reason for Contesting 8. Select “Proceed”

BY EMAIL Send an email to the DEPARTMENT CLERK and all the other parties no later than 4:00 PM one court day before the scheduled hearing. This will permit the department clerk to send invitations to counsel to appear remotely.

BOTH ECOURT AND EMAIL notices are required.