BURKE, et al. vs PACIFIC MODERN HOMES, INC., et al.

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

24CV023959: BURKE, et al. vs PACIFIC MODERN HOMES, INC., et al. 01/22/2026 Hearing on Motion for Sanctions for Violation of the Court's Discovery Order in Department 53

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.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiffs in pro per Griffin and Gregory Burke’s motion for issue sanctions as against defendant Ludwick Construction, LLC for the latter’s failure to comply with the Court’s 8/7/2025 order compelling further responses to form interrogatories is DENIED as follows.

The notice of motion does not provide the correct address for this Court’s Dept. 53/54.

Factual Background

This action arises out of plaintiffs’ purchase and construction of a pre-engineered home for their property in South Lake Tahoe. Plaintiffs have sued a variety of businesses and individuals. No trial date has been set.

On 4/11/2025, plaintiff Griffin Burke filed a motion to compel defendant Ludwick Construction, LLC’s further responses to Form Interrogatory Nos. 1.1, 2.1, 2.4-2.7, 2.13, 4.1, 8.2-8.4, 8.7, 8.8, 9.1, 12.1, 12.4, 12.5, 15.1, 16.8, 17.1, 50.1 and 50.2. Finding no opposition, the Court granted plaintiff Griffin Burke’s motion to compel further responses to these Form Interrogatories on 8/7/2025, ordering compliance no later than 8/21/2025 (unless moving plaintiff agreed to a later date memorialized in writing).

Notably, on 8/6/2025, defendant Ludwick Construction, LLC’s counsel filed a Substitution of Attorneys form indicating that the LLC was now purportedly representing itself in this suit. The Court notes Ludwick Construction, LLC may not represent itself in this suit. A corporate entity, such as Ludwick Construction, LLC, may not appear in pro per or be represented by someone who is not an attorney licensed under California law. (See, e.g., CLD Construction, Inc. v. City of San Ramon (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 1141, 1145 [“[A] corporation, unlike a natural person[,] cannot represent itself in propria persona, nor can it represent itself through a corporate officer, director or other employee who is not an attorney.

It must be represented by licensed counsel ”].)

Plaintiffs Griffin and Gregory Burke filed the present motion for issue sanctions on 8/25/2025, claiming that defendant Ludwick Construction, LLC had failed to provide further responses to the specified Form Interrogatories by the 8/21/2025 deadline and has, along with its prior counsel, engaged in a “pattern of non-compliance” with the

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV023959: BURKE, et al. vs PACIFIC MODERN HOMES, INC., et al. 01/22/2026 Hearing on Motion for Sanctions for Violation of the Court's Discovery Order in Department 53

Court’s orders. As set forth in the moving points & authorities, plaintiffs now seek issue sanctions which establish as true a variety of propositions including, for example, that Ludwick Construction, LLC is and was the alter ego of defendants Lisa Mastropieri and Curtis Ludwick; Ludwick Construction, LLC misappropriated $182,450 from plaintiffs for their own personal use; Ludwick Construction, LLC had its contractor’s license revoked for “abandonment without legal excuse;” Ludwick Construction, LLC never intended, nor did it have the ability, to finish the construction project at issue, etc. (Mov. MPA, pp.4-5; Prop. Order.)

Notably, this action is stayed as to defendants Lisa and Nicholas Mastropieri given the Notice of Stay of Proceedings filed 12/1/2025, referencing their bankruptcy filing of 10/20/2025.

Discussion

Plaintiffs Griffin and Gregory Burke’s motion for issue sanctions as against defendant Ludwick Construction, LLC shall be denied for several separate and distinct reasons.

First, while the Court’s 8/7/2025 order granted plaintiff Griffin Burke’s motion to compel defendant Ludwick Construction, LLC’s further responses to certain Form Interrogatories, nothing in that 8/7/2025 order provides plaintiff Gregory Burke with the legal standing to bring the present motion for issue sanction based on Ludwick Construction, LLC’s failure to comply with the 8/7/2025 order. In short, the 8/7/2025 order did not grant any relief to plaintiff Gregory Burke and therefore, he has no legal basis on which to now seek additional relief based on Ludwick Construction, LLC’s failure to provide further responses to certain Form Interrogatories previously propounded by plaintiff Griffin Burke.

Accordingly, to the extent the present motion seeks any relief on behalf of plaintiff Gregory Burke based on Ludwick Construction, LLC’s failure to comply with the 8/7/2025 order, it is denied.

Second, as the present motion specifically seeks “issue sanctions” against Ludwick Construction, LLC for its failure to comply with the 8/7/2025 order, this motion is procedurally defective in that it is not supported by a separate statement as expressly required by CRC Rule 3.1345(a)(7) [requiring separate statement for any motion seeking issue or evidentiary sanctions]. For this reason as well, the present motion for issue sanctions against defendant Ludwick Construction, LLC shall be denied.

Third, while it does currently appear to the Court that defendant Ludwick Construction, LLC has failed to provide further responses to the specified Form Interrogatories by the 8/25/2025 deadline, this Court does not find that the broad array of propositions which this motion seeks to establish as true (see, Mov. MPA, pp.4-5; Prop. Order) is

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV023959: BURKE, et al. vs PACIFIC MODERN HOMES, INC., et al. 01/22/2026 Hearing on Motion for Sanctions for Violation of the Court's Discovery Order in Department 53

warranted by virtue of defendant Ludwick Construction, LLC’s failure to provide further responses to those Form Interrogatories. In short, plaintiffs’ substantial list of 14 specific propositions relating to matters bearing on both liability and damages extends far beyond the relatively narrow scope of those certain Form Interrogatories which were the subject of plaintiff Griffin Burke’s prior motion to compel and are to a large degree designed to elicit basic factual information relating the parties, their pleadings and claims.

Thus, the issue sanctions do not appear to bear any direct or apparent correlation to the interrogatories for which further responses remain outstanding. In fact, the proposed issue sanctions are so disproportionately broad in comparison to those Form Interrogatories at issue in plaintiff Griffin Burke’s prior motion to compel as to effectively constitute terminating sanctions against Ludwick Construction, LLC. The Court does not find that the imposition of such severe sanctions is presently warranted under the circumstances here as against Ludwick Construction, LLC and would constitute an unjustified windfall to plaintiffs.

For misuse of the discovery process, the Court may impose sanctions, up to and including terminating sanctions, if authorized by another provision of the Civil Discovery Act. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.030, subds. (a)-(d).) Failing to respond to an authorized method of discovery constitutes a misuse of the discovery process. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2023.010, subd. (d).) Where a party fails to obey an order compelling responses, the Court is authorized to impose sanctions, including issue, evidence, or terminating sanctions. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 2030.290, subd. (c) & 2031.300, subd. (c).) The Court may also impose a monetary sanction, either in lieu of or in addition to an issue, evidence, or terminating sanction. (Id.)

The Court has broad discretion in the selection of the appropriate sanction to be applied under the factual circumstances. (Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc. 174 Cal.App.4th 967, 991-992.) The Court may impose sanctions that are suitable and necessary to enable the party seeking discovery to obtain the objects of the discovery he seeks, but the Court may not impose sanctions which are designed not to accomplish the objects of the discovery but to impose punishment. (Caryl Richards, Inc. v. Superior Court (1961) 188 Cal.App.2d 300, 304.) “The penalty should be appropriate to the dereliction, and should not exceed that which is required to protect the interests of the party entitled to but denied discovery.” (Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 793.)

“A decision to order terminating sanctions should not be made lightly. But where a violation is willful, preceded by a history of abuse, and the evidence shows that less severe sanctions would not produce compliance with the discovery rules, the trial court is justified in imposing the ultimate sanction.” (Mileikowsky v. Tenet Healthsystem (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 262, 279-280.) Sanctions are generally imposed in an incremental approach starting with monetary sanctions, with terminating sanctions

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV023959: BURKE, et al. vs PACIFIC MODERN HOMES, INC., et al. 01/22/2026 Hearing on Motion for Sanctions for Violation of the Court's Discovery Order in Department 53

being a last resort. (Lopez v. Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York, Inc. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 566, 604.)

In light of the foregoing standards, the deficiencies of the moving papers, and the facts of this case, the Court shall at the present time decline to impose any of the broad array of issue sanctions sought by the present motion.

The Court will, however, (again) order defendant Ludwick Construction, LLC to comply with the 8/7/2025 order compelling further responses to certain Form Interrogatories, this time no later than 2/22/2025. However, this compliance may only be through licensed legal counsel representing Ludwick Construction, LLC, as discussed above.

Finally, this Court would have considered imposing monetary sanctions here but they were not requested in the moving papers.

Moving parties to provide notice of this ruling and file proof of service of same within five (5) court days.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc. §1019.5; CRC Rule 3.1312.)