BADUE vs G6 HOSPITALITY LLC, et al.

23CV001172: BADUE vs G6 HOSPITALITY LLC, et al. 08/31/2026 Hearing on Motion for Reconsideration in Department 8C

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that any oral arguments regarding this tentative ruling will be heard at 1:30 p.m. in Department 8C in the Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye Courthouse at 500 G Street, Sacramento, CA, the Hon. Richard C. Miadich presiding.

Any party who wishes to contest the tentative ruling below must:

(1) request a hearing by calling the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line for Department 8C at (916) 874-8380, by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the noticed hearing date, and leave a voicemail 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 they have notified the opposing party of their intention to appear; and

(2) advise the opposing party of the location and time of hearing pursuant to Local Rule 1.06.

If a hearing is not requested by 4:00 p.m. on the Court day before the noticed hearing date, the tentative ruling will become the final order of the Court.

If a hearing is requested, the Court prefers in-person attendance by the parties. However, parties may appear by Zoom unless the Court specifically orders in-person attendance. Parties choosing to appear by Zoom are reminded, however, that a Zoom appearance is still a formal appearance before the Court. Parties appearing via Zoom should do so from a quiet location, free from undue distractions, and wear attire suitable for an in-person court appearance.

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/16039062174

SIP Address:

16039062174@sip.zoomgov.com

(833) 568-8864

23CV001172: BADUE vs G6 HOSPITALITY LLC, et al. 08/31/2026 Hearing on Motion for Reconsideration in Department 8C

ID: 16039062174

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 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.

TENTATIVE RULING

***NOTICE: EFFECTIVE APRIL 13, 2026, THIS DEPARTMENT HAS MOVED TO THE TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE COURTHOUSE LOCATED AT 500 G STREET SACRAMENTO, CA. ALL MOTIONS NOTICED FOR DEPARTMENT 28 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 8C 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***

Plaintiff Sadie Badue’s (“Plaintiff”) motion for reconsideration of or relief from the Court’s January 15, 2026 order directing Plaintiff’s counsel, Ilan N. Rosen Janfaza, to pay $1,000.00 in monetary sanctions to the Court is UNOPPOSED and ruled upon as follows.

The notice of motion does not provide notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system, as required by Local Rule 1.06. Moving counsel is directed to contact opposing counsel and advise of Local Rule 1.06 and the Court’s tentative ruling procedure and the manner to request a hearing. If moving counsel is unable to contact opposing counsel prior to the hearing, moving counsel

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV001172: BADUE vs G6 HOSPITALITY LLC, et al. 08/31/2026 Hearing on Motion for Reconsideration in Department 8C

is ordered to appear at the hearing by Zoom or in person.

Background

Mr. Janfanza has been Plaintiff’s counsel of record since this action was filed on May 5, 2023. The initial case management conference (“CMC”) was set for March 14, 2025, for which Plaintiff filed a CMC statement on February 28, 2025. On March 14, 2025, the Court continued the CMC to November 14, 2025 and directed the parties to file new CMC statements no later than 15 days before the hearing. However, Plaintiff did not file a new CMC statement until November 12, 2025. On November 14, 2025, the Court continued the CMC to January 16, 2026.

The Court also concurrently issued and order to show cause (“OSC”) re: monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and/or Plaintiff’s counsel for failure to file a CMC statement and for failure to seek entry of default against certain named defendants as to whom the Court’s records showed had been served on June 20, 2024 but had not filed responsive pleadings. The Court directed the parties to file new CMC statements at least 15 days before the continued hearing date. Additionally, in relation to the OSC, the Court stated, “Attorney/Party Compliance Statement(s) (Local Form CV\E-112) shall be filed not less than fifteen (15) days prior to the hearing pursuant to Local Rule 2.55(C).

Failure to timely file a statement may result in the imposition of sanctions.” (11/14/2025 Minute Order, p. 2.) The Court’s November 14, 2025 order was mailed to Mr. Janfaza on November 17, 2025.

Mr. Janfaza did not file a new CMC statement or an Attorney/Party Compliance Statement at least 15 days prior to the continued CMC hearing date. On January 15, 2026, the Court issued a tentative ruling for the CMC directing the parties to appear. Also on January 15, 2026, Mr. Janfaza filed a CMC statement, a declaration, and a request for dismissal as to the defendants who had not filed responsive pleadings, which was entered as requested that day. In his January 15, 2026 declaration, Mr. Janfaza apologized for “failing to file a Case Management Statement prior to the last hearing” and for wasting the Court’s time. (Janfaza Decl., dated 01/15/2026, ¶¶ 3, 5.) Mr. Janfaza’s declaration also asked that no sanctions be imposed or that the OSC hearing be continued for 60 days. (Janfaza Decl., ¶¶ 6-7.)

On January 16, 2026, the Court issued an order on the OSC sanctioning Mr. Janfanza for failing to file a CMC statement and for failing to timely seek default of three named defendants. Sanctions were imposed pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 177.5 for a total of $1,000.00, representing $250.00 for failing to file a CMC statement and $250.00 for each defendant of whom default was not timely sought. The Court mailed the sanctions order to Mr. Janfaza on February 10, 2026. Mr. Janfaza filed this motion on February 20, 2026. The Court directed the sanctions to be paid by February 23, 2026, but the sanctions have not been paid at this time.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV001172: BADUE vs G6 HOSPITALITY LLC, et al. 08/31/2026 Hearing on Motion for Reconsideration in Department 8C

Discussion

Reconsideration

Plaintiff first seeks reconsideration under section 1008(a), which states:

When an application for an order has been made to a judge, or to a court, and refused in whole or in part, or granted, or granted conditionally, or on terms, any party affected by the order may, within 10 days after service upon the party of written notice of entry of the order and based upon new or different facts, circumstances, or law, make application to the same judge or court that made the order, to reconsider the matter and modify, amend, or revoke the prior order. The party making the application shall state by affidavit what application was made before, when and to what judge, what order or decisions were made, and what new or different facts, circumstances, or law are claimed to be shown.

(Code Civ. Proc. § 1008(a), emphasis added.)

“A party seeking reconsideration also must provide a satisfactory explanation for the failure to produce the evidence at an earlier time.” (New York Times Co. v. Superior Court (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 206, 212.) An order imposing sanctions against an attorney for failure to comply with court orders and procedural rules may be the subject of a motion for reconsideration. (See Pollock v. Superior Court (1991) 229 Cal.App.3d 26, 29.)

As noted above, the sanctions were imposed against Mr. Janfaza pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 177.5, which states:

A judicial officer shall have the power to impose reasonable money sanctions, not to exceed fifteen hundred dollars ($1,500), notwithstanding any other provision of law, payable to the court, for any violation of a lawful court order by a person, done without good cause or substantial justification. This power shall not apply to advocacy of counsel before the court. For the purposes of this section, the term “person” includes a witness, a party, a party’s attorney, or both.

Sanctions pursuant to this section shall not be imposed except on notice contained in a party’s moving or responding papers; or on the court’s own motion, after notice and opportunity to be heard. An order imposing sanctions shall be in writing and shall recite in detail the conduct or circumstances justifying the order.

(Code Civ. Proc. § 177.5.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV001172: BADUE vs G6 HOSPITALITY LLC, et al. 08/31/2026 Hearing on Motion for Reconsideration in Department 8C

Mr. Janfaza asserts that he inadvertently failed to calendar the January 16, 2026 CMC/OSC hearing. Mr. Janfaza further contends:

The new and different facts warranting reconsideration were not before the Court at the time of the January 16, 2026, OSC hearing. Specifically, since the Court’s order, counsel has implemented additional calendaring and internal review procedures to ensure future compliance, and all outstanding deficiencies have been cured. These post-hearing corrective measures constitute new circumstances demonstrating that continued sanctions are no longer necessary to achieve compliance, and is appreciated by Plaintiff’s counsel.

(Mot. MPA, p. 5:15-20.)

Mr. Janfaza also asserts that he failed to dismiss or seek defaults of the three dismissed defendants because he had been unsuccessfully trying to discuss stipulating with defense counsel for the defendant who remains in the case to dismiss the other defendants, and because he was told by the former counsel for one of the dismissed defendants that the defendant had retained new counsel and that the new counsel would contact him, but new counsel never did.

The reconsideration motion is defective in that it does not provide any explanation for Mr. Janfaza’s failure to timely file a CMC statement in advance of the November 14, 2025 CMC. The OSC was issued based on this event. Nor was this an isolated incident. As Mr. Janfaza acknowledges, the Court had expressed concern over previous instances of noncompliance by Mr. Janfaza. Additionally, Mr. Janfaza fails to explain why the new facts or circumstances presented with this motion could not have been submitted at or before the OSC hearing. Mr. Janfaza’s January 15, 2026 declaration says nothing about a calendaring issue or discussions with defense counsel. Moreover, even if the new facts or circumstances could not have been presented at the OSC hearing, they would not warrant reconsideration because they do not show good cause or substantial justification under section 177.5.

Accordingly, the motion for reconsideration is DENIED.

473(b)

Mr. Janfaza also seeks relief under Code of Civil Procedure section 473(b) based on essentially the same factual basis. Section 473(b) states, in part: “The court may, upon any terms as may be just, relieve a party or the party’s legal representative from a judgment, dismissal, order, or other proceeding taken against the party through the party’s mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 473(b).) This is the discretionary relief provision. The statute also contains a mandatory relief provision, which states:

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV001172: BADUE vs G6 HOSPITALITY LLC, et al. 08/31/2026 Hearing on Motion for Reconsideration in Department 8C

Notwithstanding any other requirements of this section, the court shall, whenever an application for relief is made no more than six months after entry of judgment, is in proper form, and is accompanied by an attorney’s sworn affidavit attesting to the attorney’s mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect, vacate any (1) resulting default entered by the clerk against the attorney’s client, and which will result in entry of a default judgment, or (2) resulting default judgment or dismissal entered against the attorney’s client, unless the court finds that the default or dismissal was not in fact caused by the attorney’s mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect.

(Code Civ. Proc. § 473(b).)

To the extent relief is sought under the mandatory relief provision, the request is DENIED, as the order from which relief is sought is not a default, default judgment, or dismissal.

To the extent relief is sought under the discretionary relief provision, the requests is also DENIED. For one, it is not clear that relief under the discretionary provision is available for an order sanctioning an attorney under Code of Civil Procedure section 177.5 where the order has no effect on the ability of the attorney’s client to present their case on the merits. Even so, Mr. Janfaza has failed to establish mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. As noted above, Mr. Janfaza has not explained why he failed to file a timely CMC statement in advance of the November 14, 2025 CMC. His declaration blames a calendaring error for failing to file a timely CMC statement for the January 16, 2026 CMC. (Janfaza Decl., ¶ 7.) Regarding the failure to dismiss or take the default of the now-dismissed defendants, Mr. Janfaza declares in a conclusory manner:

My office had done extensive research to understand the proper parties to this matter, however, desired to confirm this with defense counsels prior to dismissing any parties. When I was unable to confirm with defense counsel, I inadvertently failed to go ahead and dismiss improper defendants prior to the hearing. I was able to rectify the issue the day before and file a Request for Dismissal, dismissing remaining improper defendants.

(Janfaza Decl., ¶ 8.)

This does not make the failure to dismiss or seek entry of default for these defendants excusable. Mr. Janfaza provides no specific facts on this topic. The emails attached to Mr. Janfaza’s declaration indicate that there was no effort to discuss dismissing certain defendants until December of 2025, and this is only after several emails over a period of three months in which Mr. Janfaza’s office is advised that one defendant has retained new counsel and that the prior counsel needed to be removed from the email list. (See Janfaza Decl., Exh. A.) Even accepting that counsel for Ohm Shree Sai Investments, LLC, the only remaining defendant in this matter,

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV001172: BADUE vs G6 HOSPITALITY LLC, et al. 08/31/2026 Hearing on Motion for Reconsideration in Department 8C

failed to respond to inquiries in December of 2025 and January of 2026 about stipulating to dismiss the other defendants, that does not explain why efforts were not made earlier given that the other defendants were served eighteen months earlier in June of 2024, or why Plaintiff did not request entry of default once counsel for Ohm Shree failed to respond.

Accordingly, the motion for relief under Code of Civil Procedure section 473(b) is DENIED.

Disposition

For the reasons discussed above, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.

As noted above, the sanctions that were ordered by the Court on January 16, 2026 to be paid by February 23, 2026 have not been paid. With the present motion being denied, Mr. Janfaza is ordered to pay a total of $1,000.00 in monetary sanctions to the Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento, for the reasons discussed in the Court’s January 16, 2026 order, by no later than September 2, 2026.

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.)