RHOAN vs BIBI’S ENCHILADAS & GRILL, LLC, et al.

25CV021897: RHOAN vs BIBI'S ENCHILADAS & GRILL, LLC, et al. 09/09/2026 Hearing on Motion to Deem Request for Admissions Admitted 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

25CV021897: RHOAN vs BIBI'S ENCHILADAS & GRILL, LLC, et al. 09/09/2026 Hearing on Motion to Deem Request for Admissions Admitted 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 Annette Rhoan’s (“Plaintiff”) motion to deem matters admitted is UNOPPOSED and ruled upon as follows.

On December 12, 2025, Plaintiff served written discovery on Defendants Bibi’s Enchiladas & Grill, LLC, Amanda Serrato De Romero, and Michel De Romero (collectively, “Defendants”) via email to Defendants’ then-counsel, Paris Page. (Taylor Decl., ¶ 2.) The discovery included

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV021897: RHOAN vs BIBI'S ENCHILADAS & GRILL, LLC, et al. 09/09/2026 Hearing on Motion to Deem Request for Admissions Admitted in Department 8C

(1) Plaintiff’s Request for Admission, Set One to Bibi’s Enchilada & Grill, LLC; (2) Plaintiff’s Request for Admission, Set One to Amanda Serrato De Romero; and (3) Plaintiff’s Request for Admission, Set One to Michel De Romero. (Taylor Decl., Exhs. A, B, & C.) Ms. Page requested and was granted a three-week extension to serve responses, making the responses due on February 3, 2026. (Taylor Decl., ¶ 3.) However, Defendants failed to serve responses to the requests for admission. (Taylor Decl., ¶ 4.)

Since Defendants have not served responses, Plaintiff is entitled to an order deeming admitted the matters specified in Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions, Set One as to each Defendant. (See Taylor Decl., Exhs. A, B, & C.)

The Court is required to make this order deeming the requests for admissions admitted, unless Defendants serve on Plaintiff’s counsel and files with the Court, before the hearing on the motion, verified responses to the requests for admission that are in substantial compliance with Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.220.

Plaintiff also requests monetary sanctions in relation to this motion in the amount of $1,985.00, based on 2.0 hours at $475.00 per hour, 6.5 hours at $150.00 per hour, and $60.00 for the filing fee for this motion. (Taylor Decl., ¶¶ 5-7.) Monetary sanctions are mandatory “on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated” a motion to deem matters admitted. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280(c).) The sanctions are mandatory even if the responding party avoids a deemed admitted order by serving belated responses before the hearing as described above. (See Katayama v.

Continental Investment Group (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 898, 909.) Thus, Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions is GRANTED in the reduced amount of $795.00, representing 0.6 hours at $475.00 per hour, 3.0 hours at $150.00 per hour, and $60.00 in costs. Sanctions are imposed against each Defendant individually in the amount of $265.00 (i.e., one third of $795.00). Sanctions shall be paid by no later than September 30, 2026, and if not paid by that date, Plaintiff may prepare for the Court’s signature a formal order granting the sanctions, which may then be enforced as a separate judgment. (Newland v.

Superior Court (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 608, 615.)

Plaintiff shall provide notice of this ruling via mail.