BRIDGE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT COMPANY VS. ARMANDO VEGA PACHECO, ET AL

8/27/2026 – Law and Motion Calendar Judge: Honorable Mark A. McCannon – Department 2 Page 13 of 16

UD LAW AND MOTION CALENDAR THURSDAY, AUGUST 27, 2026

2:00 PM LINE 8 26-UDL-00208 BRIDGE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT COMPANY VS. ARMANDO VEGA PACHECO, ET AL

BRIDGE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT COMPANY MERCEDES A. GAVIN ARMANDO VEGA PACHECO PRO SE

Plaintiff’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions Against Defendants Armando Vega Pacheco, Alexander Chaparro Rodriguez and Yenci Leguizamon

TENTATIVE RULING:

For the reasons stated below, Plaintiff Bridge Property Management Co.’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions against Defendants Armando Vega Pacheco, Alexander Chaparro Rodriguez, and Yenci Leguizamon is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

On June 16, 2026, the Court found that Defendants had failed to respond to interrogatories, inspection demands, and requests for admission served by Plaintiff. The Court deemed the matters specified in the requests for admission admitted, ordered each Defendant to serve responses to the interrogatories and inspection demands within five days after service of notice of the order, and ordered Defendants to pay monetary sanctions of $585 within 30 days. Notice of the order was served by mail on June 16, 2026. Defendants therefore were required to serve the discovery responses by June 22, 2026, and pay the monetary sanctions by July 16, 2026.

Plaintiff’s evidence establishes that, as of June 29, 2026, Defendants had not served the ordered discovery responses and that, as of August 12, 2026, they had not paid the monetary sanctions. (Gavin Decl., ¶ 4.) Plaintiff seeks an order striking Defendants’ Answer and entering their defaults pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030.

A trial court has broad discretion in selecting an appropriate discovery sanction. (Cornerstone Realty Advisors, LLC v. Summit Healthcare REIT, Inc. (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 771, 789.) That discretion, however, must be exercised in light of the principle that discovery sanctions are intended to remedy the harm caused by discovery misuse rather than to punish a litigant or provide the opposing party with a windfall. (City of Los Angeles v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP(2024) 17 Cal.5th 46, 75; Victor Valley Union High School Dist. v. Superior Court (2023) 91 Cal.App.5th 1121, 1158.) The discovery statutes generally contemplate an incremental approach to sanctions, although prior unsuccessful lesser sanctions are not an absolute prerequisite to terminating sanctions in an appropriate case. (Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 787, 793.)

On the present record, the drastic remedy of striking Defendants’ Answer and entering default is not warranted. Plaintiff sought discovery concerning the factual bases, witnesses, and documents supporting

8/27/2026 – Law and Motion Calendar Judge: Honorable Mark A. McCannon – Department 2 Page 14 of 16

Defendants’ denial of Plaintiff’s allegations. Although that discovery is important to Plaintiff’s ability to prepare for trial, Plaintiff has not shown that Defendants’ noncompliance has deprived Plaintiff of evidence necessary to establish its own prima facie case. Striking the Answer and entering default at this stage would therefore impose a sanction disproportionate to the prejudice presently demonstrated.

Moreover, the supporting declaration establishes that the discovery responses remained outstanding as of June 29, 2026, but does not expressly establish that they remained outstanding as of August 12, 2026, when the present motion was filed. The evidence does establish that the previously ordered $585 monetary sanction remained unpaid as of August 12. Nonpayment of a monetary discovery sanction, standing alone, does not justify a terminating sanction. (Newland v. Superior Court (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 608, 615.)

The motion for terminating sanctions is therefore DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Defendants Armando Vega Pacheco, Alexander Chaparro Rodriguez, and Yenci Leguizamon are ordered to appear on August 27, 2026, at 2:00 p.m., in Department 2, 1050 Mission Road, South San Francisco, California, and show cause why issue, evidence, terminating, and/or additional monetary sanctions should not be imposed based upon their failure to comply with the Court’s June 16, 2026 order compelling responses to Plaintiff’s interrogatories and inspection demands.

Each Defendant shall serve all outstanding responses required by the June 16, 2026 order no later than September 4, 2027 at 4:00 p.m. Any Defendant contending that he or she has already complied shall file and serve, no later than September 4, 2027, a declaration identifying the date and manner of compliance and attaching a copy of the responses served.

Defendants are advised that continued failure to comply with the Court’s June 16, 2026 discovery order may result in issue or evidence sanctions, the striking of their April 6, 2026 Answer, and entry of default.

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court. Thereafter, counsel for the moving party shall prepare a written order consistent with the Court's ruling for the Court's signature pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312, and provide written notice of the ruling to all parties who have appeared in the action, as required by law and the California Rules of Court. The Court directs the parties to San Mateo County Superior Court Local Rule 3.403(b)(iv) regarding the wording of proposed orders.