Allegra Aquil-Sims vs. Brian A Ramirez

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

34-2019-00264029-CU-PA-GDS: Allegra Aquil-Sims vs. Brian A Ramirez 12/31/2025 Hearing on Motion to Strike Answer of Brian Ramirez and Brocco Motors, LLC and to Enter Default in Department 25

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’ Notice of Motion does not provide notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system, as required by Local Rule 1.06(D). Plaintiffs’ counsel is directed to contact opposing counsel forthwith to advise counsel of Local Rule 1.06 and the Court’s tentative ruling procedure. If Plaintiffs’ counsel is unable to contact opposing counsel prior to the hearing, Plaintiffs’ counsel shall be available at the hearing, in person or remotely (telephonically or by video conference via Zoom as stated in the introductory notice to today’s tentative rulings), in the event opposing counsel appears without following the procedures set forth in Local Rule 1.06(B).

Plaintiffs Allegra Aquil-Sims and Gregory A. Harriel’s (“Plaintiffs”) Motion to Strike Defendants Brian Ramirez and Brocco Otors, LLC’s (“Defendants”) Answer and Enter Default is unopposed but denied.

The Court notes that had the instant motion not been denied on the merits, it would have been denied for failure to comply with the Court’s November 10, 2025 order on Plaintiffs’ ex parte for an order shortening time on the instant motion, which required Plaintiff to file and serve an amended notice of motion by no later than November 17, 2025. Plaintiffs failed to file and serve any amended notice of motion following the Court’s ex parte order.

This is a wrongful death action arising out of a motor vehicle accident which occurred on or around September 22, 2017. Plaintiffs filed their complaint on September 4, 2019. Defendants filed an answer on October 8, 2021.

On April 3, 2025, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ unopposed motions to compel the depositions of Brian Ramirez and Brocco Otors, LLC’s person most qualified. The Court further granted sanctions in the amount of $2,800 against Defendants.

Plaintiffs now move to strike Defendants’ answer pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030(d) on the grounds that Defendants have failed to comply with the Court’s order.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2019-00264029-CU-PA-GDS: Allegra Aquil-Sims vs. Brian A Ramirez 12/31/2025 Hearing on Motion to Strike Answer of Brian Ramirez and Brocco Motors, LLC and to Enter Default in Department 25

For misuse of the discovery process, including as is the case here, disobeying a court order to provide discovery, the Court may impose a terminating sanction by one of the following: an order striking out the pleadings or parts of the pleadings of any party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process or an order dismissing the action, or any part of the action, of that party. (See, e.g. Code of Civil Procedure sections 2023.010(d) and (g), 2023.030(d)(1) and (3).) The Court has broad discretion in selecting the appropriate sanctions under the factual circumstances before it. (Cedars- Sinai Medical Center v. Superior Court (1998) 18 Cal.4th 1, 12.)

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 sanctions the court may impose are such as 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.) Sanctions are generally imposed in an incremental approach starting with monetary sanctions, with terminating sanctions being a last resort. (Lopez v. Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York, Inc. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 566, 604.)

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

While it does appear that Defendants have failed to appear for their depositions as required by the prior order and have also failed to file any opposition to the present motion, this Court concludes that terminating sanctions for such non-compliance would under the circumstances here constitute a windfall to Plaintiffs. While Plaintiffs assert that Defendants did not comply with the Court’s April 3, 2025 orders, no further motions to compel compliance with the Court’s orders or request for sanctions for failure to comply has been filed. Under the circumstances and the record before it, the Court

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2019-00264029-CU-PA-GDS: Allegra Aquil-Sims vs. Brian A Ramirez 12/31/2025 Hearing on Motion to Strike Answer of Brian Ramirez and Brocco Motors, LLC and to Enter Default in Department 25

cannot find that less severe sanction would not produce compliance with discovery rules, as no such lesser sanctions have been requested or attempted. As such, the motion to strike answer and enter default shall be DENIED.

No monetary or issue sanctions were requested in Plaintiffs’ motion, and thus none were awarded.

The Court will again order that Defendants appear for their depositions as previously ordered by the Court. Depositions shall occur by January 30, 2025, unless the parties agree in writing to a later date. Defendants’ failure to comply with this order may result in the imposition of serious sanctions, including terminating sanctions.

Moving party shall provide notice of this ruling and file proof of service of same no later than January 5, 2026.

The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312 or further notice is required.