MENDOZA vs WEST COAST EQUINE FOUNDATION, et al.

24CV007494: MENDOZA vs WEST COAST EQUINE FOUNDATION, et al. 05/20/2026 Hearing on Motion for Order to Show Cause Re: Contempt Concerning Failure to Comply withe Business Records Subpoena in Department 8D

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to “Public Notice – Civil Division – Wednesday Law and Motion Calendar” any oral arguments regarding this tentative ruling will be heard in Department 8D, located at 500 G Street, Sacramento, CA, the Hon. Julie G. Yap presiding. Should argument be requested by either party, the requesting party 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, request the hearing, and notify the opposing party of the location and time of hearing pursuant to Local Rule 1.06.

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.

The Court encourages parties to appear remotely for the hearing on the tentative ruling through the Court’s Zoom Application. But, any party wishing to appear in person may do so, provided that party notifies the Court by 4:00 the Court day before the hearing. The parties may join the Zoom session for hearing on the tentative ruling by audio and/or video through the following link: https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16113421868 SIP Address: 16113421868@sip.zoomgov.com (833) 568-8864 ID: 16113421868 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

24CV007494: MENDOZA vs WEST COAST EQUINE FOUNDATION, et al. 05/20/2026 Hearing on Motion for Order to Show Cause Re: Contempt Concerning Failure to Comply withe Business Records Subpoena in Department 8D

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 be forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided

***NOTICE: EFFECTIVE APRIL 13, 2026, THIS DEPARTMENT HAS MOVED TO THE TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE COURTHOUSE LOCATED AT 500 G. ST. SACRAMENTO, CA. ALL MOTIONS NOTICED FOR DEPARTMENT 25 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 8D OF THE NEW COURTHOUSE. ALL PAPERS FOR THIS DEPARTMENT MUST BE FILED AT THIS NEW LOCATION AND WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED AT THE HALL OF JUSTICE. ALL HEARINGS WILL TAKE PLACE AT THIS NEW LOCATION****

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendants’ Notice of Motion does not provide notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system, as required by Local Rule 1.06(D). Defendants’ counsel is directed to contact opposing counsel forthwith to advise counsel of Local Rule 1.06 and the Court’s tentative ruling procedure. If Defendants’ counsel is unable to contact opposing counsel prior to the hearing, Defendants’ counsel shall be available at the hearing, in person or remotely (telephonically or by video conference via Zoom as stated in the introductory notice to today’s tentative rulings), in the event opposing counsel appears without following the procedures set forth in Local Rule 1.06(B).

Defendants Cosumnes Corporation and West Palms Communications, Inc.’s (“Defendants”) Motion for an Order to Show Cause Re: Contempt for Failure to Comply with Deposition Subpoena is CONTINUED for Defendants to provide service to all interested parties to this motion, namely the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department.

Defendants’ proof of service indicates that the instant motion was served on the other parties but not on Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department, against whom Defendants seek an order to show cause regarding contempt. Defendants have filed no proof of service indicating that service was performed on Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department. Defective service deprives the court of jurisdiction to act. (Lee v. Placer Title Co. (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 503, 509.)

It is axiomatic that a court may not punish a contempt committed out of its presence without a full hearing at which the alleged contemner appears by reason of arrest under

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV007494: MENDOZA vs WEST COAST EQUINE FOUNDATION, et al. 05/20/2026 Hearing on Motion for Order to Show Cause Re: Contempt Concerning Failure to Comply withe Business Records Subpoena in Department 8D

a warrant, or at which he has the opportunity to appear by reason of personal service of an order to show cause (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1211, 1212). Without evidence of personal service, the Court is without jurisdiction to make an order of commitment for contempt. (See Lund v. Superior Court (1964) 61 Cal. 2d 698, 713; Reymert v. Smith (1907) 5 Cal App 380.)

Here, while Defendants seek the Court to issue an Order to Show Cause re. Contempt through this motion, not necessarily the contempt finding itself, the Court has serious concerns about issuing such an OSC where the third party has had no notice of the pending request or an opportunity to respond. This is particularly true where the third party produced two witnesses for deposition in response to subpoenas for deposition and one such witness provided testimony that (1) a report was produced pursuant to the subpoena; and (2) the custodian of record from was trained not to release records when there is still an active court case involving the records. (Exh. D. at 16:5-19.)[1]

This matter is continued to June 22, 2026 at 1:30 p.m. in Department 8D. Defendants shall serve a copy of this Order and all moving papers on the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department, by personal service, no less than sixteen (16) court days prior to the hearing. Any opposition shall be filed and served no less than nine (9) court days prior to the hearing. Any reply shall be filed and served no less than five (5) courts days prior to the hearing.

[1] Indeed, the Court has concerns that the assertion that the witness did not look for the

requested documents is not entirely accurate/supported by the testimony cited. (See Mot. at p. 4:3.)