MENDOZA vs WEST COAST EQUINE FOUNDATION, et al.

24CV007494: MENDOZA vs WEST COAST EQUINE FOUNDATION, et al. 09/02/2026 Hearing on Motion to Deem Request for Admissions Admitted to Defendant Consumnes Corporation in Department 8D

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 Department 8D Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-7719 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 8D Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16113421868 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 on the Court Reporter Services webpage available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://saccourt.ca.gov/general-information/court-reporter-services-transcripts. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://saccourt.ca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/227/639084034465370000.

24CV007494: MENDOZA vs WEST COAST EQUINE FOUNDATION, et al. 09/02/2026 Hearing on Motion to Deem Request for Admissions Admitted to Defendant Consumnes Corporation in Department 8D

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 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.

*** EFFECTIVE APRIL 13, 2026, THIS DEPARTMENT HAS MOVED TO THE TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE COURTHOUSE LOCATED AT 500 G STREET IN SACRAMENTO, CA 95814. ALL HEARINGS NOTICED FOR DEPARTMENT 25 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 8D OF THE NEW COURTHOUSE. ***

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Ricardo Mendoza’s (“Plaintiff”) motion for an order deeming the truth of matters admitted in Defendant’s Requests for Admissions, Set One against defendant Cosumnes Corporation (“Defendant”) is ruled upon as follows.

On or about March 23, 2026, Plaintiff propounded Request for Admissions Set One, on Defendant. (Contreras Decl., ¶ 3.) Defendant’s responses were due no later than April 24, 2026. (Id. at ¶ 4.) On April 27, 2026, the parties met and conferred, via email, and on May 8, 2026, the Parties met and conferred, via email. (Id. at ¶ 6; Mdinaradze Decl., ¶¶ 5-6, Exh. B.) It appears there is a dispute regarding when responses were agreed to be provided during the May 8, 2026 call; Plaintiff contends it was agreed to May 11, 2026, and Defendant contends that it was May 15, 2026. (Contreras Decl., ¶ 6; Mdinaradze Decl., ¶ 5.) On May 14, 2026, Plaintiff’s counsel sent an email, asserting the following:

To date, we have not received Defendants responses to Plaintiff’s requests for admission. They are now more than two weeks overdue. When we spoke on May 8, you assured me that substantive responses without objections would be served by May 11. If we do not receive them by the end of the day today, we will move to deem them admitted.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV007494: MENDOZA vs WEST COAST EQUINE FOUNDATION, et al. 09/02/2026 Hearing on Motion to Deem Request for Admissions Admitted to Defendant Consumnes Corporation in Department 8D

(Exh. 2 to Contreras Decl. (emphasis added).)

Plaintiff filed the pending motion on May 15, 2026. Defendant served responses on May 15, 2026. (Mdinaradze Decl., ¶ 3, Exh. A.)

Defendant opposes the pending motion on the grounds that it served compliance responses to the Request for Admissions on May 15, 2026, which Defendant contends renders the motion moot. Defendant also opposes on the grounds that Plaintiff brings the motion in bad faith because, during meet-and-confer efforts, Plaintiff allegedly agreed to extend the deadline for Defendant to provide responses to May 15, 2026; however, despite Defendant serving responses on such date, Plaintiff filed the present motion on the same date. (See Mdinaradze Decl., ¶¶ 5-6.)

On reply, Plaintiff contends that the May 15, 2026 responses are not in substantial compliance with section 2033.220 and therefore, must be deemed admitted.

Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280 provides that, “if a party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to serve a timely response,” the “party to whom the requests for admission are directed waives any objection to the requests” and the “requesting party may move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted, as well as for a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010).” (See Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, subd. (a)-(b).) Section 2033.280(c) further provides:

(c) The court shall make this order, unless it finds that the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220. It is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion.

(emphasis added.)

Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.260 governs extensions of time for service of a response, as follows:

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV007494: MENDOZA vs WEST COAST EQUINE FOUNDATION, et al. 09/02/2026 Hearing on Motion to Deem Request for Admissions Admitted to Defendant Consumnes Corporation in Department 8D

(a) The party requesting admissions and the responding party may agree to extend the time for service of a response to a set of admission requests, or to particular requests in a set, to a date beyond that provided in Section 2033.250.

(b) This agreement may be informal, but it shall be confirmed in a writing that specifies the extended date for service of a response.

(c) Unless this agreement expressly states otherwise, it is effective to preserve to the responding party the right to respond to any request for admission to which the agreement applies in any manner specified in Sections 2033.210, 2033.220, and 2033.230.

(d) Notice of this agreement shall be given by the responding party to all other parties who were served with a copy of the request.

(emphasis added.)

Service of responses after the motion was filed does not moot the motion. Plaintiff is still entitled to an order as a motion is “made” when it is filed and served. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1005.5.) There is also no meet and confer requirement with respect to a motion to compel initial responses such as the motion brought here. (Leach v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 906.) As such, Defendant’s arguments on these bases are without merit.

However, the Court finds that Defendant has presented evidence that, prior to the hearing on this motion, Defendant served responses in substantial compliance with section 2033.220.

Specifically, section 2033.220 provides:

(a) Each answer in a response to requests for admission shall be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits.

(b) Each answer shall:

(1) Admit so much of the matter involved in the request as is true, either as expressed in the request itself or as reasonably and clearly qualified by the responding party.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV007494: MENDOZA vs WEST COAST EQUINE FOUNDATION, et al. 09/02/2026 Hearing on Motion to Deem Request for Admissions Admitted to Defendant Consumnes Corporation in Department 8D

(2) Deny so much of the matter involved in the request as is untrue.

(3) Specify so much of the matter involved in the request as to the truth of which the responding party lacks sufficient information or knowledge.

(c) If a responding party gives lack of information or knowledge as a reason for a failure to admit all or part of a request for admission, that party shall state in the answer that a reasonable inquiry concerning the matter in the particular request has been made, and that the information known or readily obtainable is insufficient to enable that party to admit the matter.

To the extent Plaintiff contends that objections were waived, it is unclear from the record before it whether the extensions agreed upon by the parties to respond included a waiver of objections or an extension that would also allow objections. However, as set forth in section 2033.260, an agreement to extent the time for service of a response “shall be confirmed in a writing that specifies the extended date for service of a response.” The only writings that mention and subsequently confirm the date for response address a May 11, 2026 response date.

As such, the Court must use such a date for purposes of this motion. Accordingly, at minimum, Defendant’s objections were waived under section 2033.280(a) when Defendant failed to respond to the requests by this date. (See Exh. 2 to Contreras Decl.) Nevertheless, based on the record before it, the Court cannot find that the assertion of objections renders the responses not in “substantial compliance.”

Second, to the extent Plaintiff takes issue with the substance of the responses, the Court does not find that this renders the responses not in “substantial compliance.” As an initial matter, not all responses to the requests are the same; Defendant admits some parts of requests and denies others. For other requests, which it appears Plaintiff primarily takes issue with, Defendant responds: “A reasonable inquiry into the matter of the request has been made and the information known or readily obtainable is insufficient to enable Responding Party to admit or deny the request.” (See Exh.

A to Mdinaradze Decl.) While Plaintiff may want further responses, the served responses appear to be code-compliant; the Court will not take up issues that are more properly addressed on a motion to compel further responses, particularly where the current motion does not present the supporting materials that such a motion would require, including a separate statement.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV007494: MENDOZA vs WEST COAST EQUINE FOUNDATION, et al. 09/02/2026 Hearing on Motion to Deem Request for Admissions Admitted to Defendant Consumnes Corporation in Department 8D

The Court further notes its concern regarding Plaintiff’s selective citation to section 2033.220 in the reply brief. While Plaintiff cites to (b)(1) and (b)(2) in support of the assertion regarding what constitutes a code-compliant response, Plaintiff fails to include the subdivisions of (b)(3) and (c), which are directly relevant to the current motion and arguments in reply. (See Reply at p. 2, ¶ 2.)

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, the motion is DENIED because Defendant served responses to the Request for Admissions on May 15, 2026 (i.e., before the hearing on the motion), and the responses appear to be in substantial compliance with Code of Civil Procedure, section 2033.220. Nevertheless, in conformity with the foregoing, Defendant shall provide verified amended responses, without objections and not subject to objections, to Plaintiff’s RFAs, Set One, no later than September 11, 2026 (unless the Parties agree to a later date memorialized in writing).

Finally, even though responses were served before the hearing, sanctions are mandatory. Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, subd. (c) provides that it “is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction... on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion.” As set forth above, the only written confirmation of the extension of time was to May 11, 2026. Therefore, the responses served on May 15, 2026 were untimely. Plaintiff’s request for a mandatory monetary sanction in the amount of $60 is GRANTED. The monetary sanction is to be paid on or before October 2, 2026. If the sanction is not paid by that date, Plaintiff may prepare for the Court’s signature a formal order granting the sanction, which may be enforced by a separate judgment. (Newland v. Superior Court (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 608, 615.)

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1019.5; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1312.)