ELIJAH CARON ET AL VS. DOMINICK SAGER ET AL

September 4, 2026 Dept. 9 Civil Tentative Rulings

15. 25CV2442 ELIJAH CARON ET AL VS. DOMINICK SAGER ET AL MOTION TO COMPEL / MOTION TO ENFORFORCE CONTRACTUAL HOLDOVER RENT AND MODIFY FAIR RENTAL VALUE

Before the Court are three motions: 1) Defendants’ Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set Two; 2) Defendants’ Motion to Compel Further Responses to Demand for Production of Documents, Set Two to Elijah Caron; and 3) Defendants’ Motion to Enforce Contractual Holdover Rent and Modify Fair Rental Value Payment Order. MOTIONS TO COMPEL As to Defendants’ Motion to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set Two and Motion to Compel Further Responses to Demand for Production of Documents, Set Two to Elijah Caron (collectively the “Discovery Motions”) filed on July 20, 2026, the Court finds the meet and confer efforts to be inadequate.

The Court therefore orders the following: Parties are to immediately begin the meet and confer process on the Discovery Motions dated July 20, 2026. The parties are ordered to meet and confer on video conference or in person in a good faith effort to resolve each matter on an item-by-item basis. Both parties are referred to standards of professionalism and civility as discussed in Townsend v. Superior Court (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1431, 1439; and Manzetti v. Superior Court (1993) 21 Cal.App.4th 373, 380, fn.8.

The meet and confer meeting(s) is to be recorded and the recording is to be made available to the Court at the hearing. All parties/attorneys are ordered to make the recording or may all agree to only one party making the recording. No later than October 9, 2026, the parties shall file a JOINT status report of no more than 5 pages outlining which, if any, items remain in dispute and why, including any request for sanctions. Failure to sign and participate in drafting the joint report will open each side to monetary sanctions for failure to follow this Order pursuant to California Rules of Court 5.14 and 5.98.

The parties shall not file a response or reply papers or any other papers in support or opposition of this motion. The court will only consider the joint status report that should explain what item(s) remains in dispute and the legal reasons why it’s in dispute. Parties shall explain the amount of monetary sanctions sought and the reasons why within the joint status report such that the court can address the same in any subsequent order individually. The court reminds the parties that it is not enough to refer the court back to the original papers or to other papers filed in association with each matter or previous status report.

Moreover, the joint status report(s) should proceed to list items remaining in dispute along with the legal reason(s) why. The parties shall submit a joint status report that complies with CRC

September 4, 2026 Dept. 9 Civil Tentative Rulings

3.1345 which explains why a specific request is in dispute and each party’s position. Parties should be careful to delineate the items in dispute in such a way that the Court will be fully aware as to which set of discovery the item in dispute is referring. If an item is not specifically listed and briefed with applicable points and authorities in the joint status report, the Court will assume that the issue has been resolved. The parties are required to be reasonable in this process or face additional monetary sanctions.

A courtesy copy of the joint status report(s) shall be delivered electronically to Department 9. The hearing on this motion is scheduled on October 16, 2026, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 9. MOTION TO ENFORCE CONTRACTUAL HOLDOVER RENT AND MODIFY FAIR RENTAL VALUE On July 9, 2026, Defendants/Cross-Complainants, Dominick and Wendy Sager (“Defendants”) filed a Motion to Enforce Contractual Holdover Rent and Modify Fair Rental Value Payment Order. Plaintiffs, Elijah Caron and Karenda Caron (“Plaintiffs”), filed an Opposition on August 10, 2026.

Defendants assert that as holdover tenants, Plaintiffs owe the fair market rental value of the Subject Property, which is established at $4,900/month. In the alternative, Defendants request that pursuant to Section 29 of the lease, the Base Rent increased to 150% for any period the Plaintiffs hold over, which is accordingly $4,019.03/month. On June 22, 2026, the Court entered an order which, in part, ordered Plaintiffs to pay the sum of $2,679.35 to Defendants each month. The foregoing payments shall be deemed fair rental value payments, post-lease termination, and will not revive or create any tenancy or landlord/tenant relationship.

The Court reserved jurisdiction to modify the amount of fair rental value payments. Plaintiffs argue that it is unclear what authority, if any, the Court has to “enforce” the agreement at this phase of the litigation. It appears Defendants are asking for either 1) injunctive relief or 2) to reconsider its ruling where it determined the payment amount was fair rental and reasonable at this phase of the litigation. Plaintiffs argue Defendants have already received over $300,000.00 from Plaintiffs and are currently receiving roughly $2,700/month despite breaching the contract with Plaintiffs; therefore, Defendants are not suffering from any injury.

The Court is not inclined to modify rent during the pendency of the litigation. The Court finds this is a consolidated matter wherein there is a factual dispute as to whether Plaintiffs are in fact holdover tenants. Upon a finding by a trier of fact that Plaintiffs are holdover tenants, Defendants would be entitled to damages, including the fair rental value, which could be greater

September 4, 2026 Dept. 9 Civil Tentative Rulings

than the contractual rent amount. Code of Civil Procedure § 1174(b). Defendants’ request is denied. TENTATIVE RULING #15: DEFENDANTS’ DISCOVERY MOTIONS ARE CONTINUED TO OCTOBER 16, 2026, AT 8:30 A.M. IN DEPARTMENT 9. PARTIES AND COUNSEL ARE ORDERED TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT’S ORDER TO MEET AND CONFER AS OUTLINED IN THE TENTATIVE RULING. DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO ENFORCE CONTRACTUAL HOLDOVER RENT AND MODIFY FAIR RENTAL VALUE IS DENIED. NO HEARING ON THIS MATTER WILL BE HELD UNLESS A REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT IS TRANSMITTED ELECTRONICALLY THROUGH THE COURT’S WEBSITE OR BY TELEPHONE TO THE COURT AT (530) 621-6551 BY 4:00 P.M.

ON THE DAY THE TENTATIVE RULING IS ISSUED. CAL. RULE CT. 3.1308; LOCAL RULE 8.05.07; SEE ALSO LEWIS V. SUPERIOR COURT, 19 CAL.4TH 1232, 1247 (1999). NOTICE TO ALL PARTIES OF A REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT AND THE GROUNDS UPON WHICH ARGUMENT IS BEING REQUESTED MUST BE MADE BY TELEPHONE OR IN PERSON BY 4:00 P.M. ON THE DAY THE TENTATIVE RULING IS ISSUED. CAL. RULE CT. 3.1308; EL DORADO COUNTY LOCAL RULE 8.05.07. PROOF OF SERVICE OF SAID NOTICE MUST BE FILED PRIOR TO OR AT THE HEARING. LONG CAUSE HEARINGS MUST BE REQUESTED BY 4:00 P.M.

ON THE DAY THE TENTATIVE RULING IS ISSUED AND THE PARTIES ARE TO PROVIDE THE COURT WITH THREE MUTUALLY AGREEABLE DATES ON FRIDAY AFTERNOONS AT 2:30 P.M. LONG CAUSE ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTS WILL BE SET FOR HEARING ON ONE OF THE THREE MUTUALLY AGREEABLE DATES ON FRIDAY AFTERNOONS AT 2:30 P.M. THE COURT WILL ADVISE THE PARTIES OF THE LONG CAUSE HEARING DATE AND TIME BY 5:00 P.M. ON THE DAY THE TENTATIVE RULING IS ISSUED. PARTIES MAY PERSONALLY APPEAR AT THE HEARING.

September 4, 2026 Dept. 9 Civil Tentative Rulings

16. 26CV2005 VINCEPT SAPORITO VS. COBRA VAN LINES, LLC ARBITRATION AWARD

The Notice does not comply with Local Rules 7.10.05. Repeated violations will be grounds for sanctions pursuant to Local Rule 7.12.13. Petitioners, Vincent Saporito and Kathleen Saporito (collectively “Petitioners”), petition the Court for an order confirming the arbitrator’s award. Petitioners assert that a Contract for Arbitration Services (the “Contract”) was entered into on March 27, 2026; however, the Contract does not contain Respondent’s signature as required. Petitioner’s declaration confirms that Respondent did not sign the Contract or participate in arbitration.

The Final Arbitration Award was issued on May 11, 2026 (the “Arbitration Award”). The Arbitration award indicates that Respondent did not pay the administrative fee, submit a brief or evidence, and did not otherwise participate in the arbitration. Nevertheless, the arbitration proceeded on the timely-filed record. The Arbitration Award provides, in part, as follows: It is hereby ordered that Respondent Cobra Van Lines, LLC shall pay $3,900.91 to Petitioners Vincent Saporito and Kathleen Saporito within forty-five (45) days of the date of this Final Arbitration Agreement.

Failure to timely pay permits Petitioners to pursue all remedies at law or equity, including entry of judgment on this Award and recovery of reasonable costs and attorney’s fees incurred in enforcement. Any party to an arbitration in which an award has been made may petition the court to confirm, correct or vacate the award. The petition shall name as respondents all parties to the arbitration and may name as respondents any other persons bound by the arbitration award. Code Civil Procedure § 1285.

Code of Civil Procedure § 1285.4 requires that a petition shall: (a) Set forth the substance of or have attached a copy of the agreement to arbitrate unless the petitioner denies the existence of such an agreement. (b) Set forth the names of the arbitrators. (c) Set forth or have attached a copy of the award and the written opinion of the arbitrators, if any. The Court does not find there is a valid agreement to arbitrate, as Respondents did not enter into the agreement evidenced by the lack of signature.

The Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award is denied. //

36