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 05/27/2026 Hearing on Motion for Terminating Sanctions and for Entry of Default Against defs in Department 8D

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.

***NOTICE: EFFECTIVE APRIL 13, 2026, THIS DEPARTMENT HAS MOVED TO THE TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE COURTHOUSE LOCATED AT 500 G. ST. SACRAMENTO, CA. ALL MOTIONS NOTICED FOR DEPARTMENT 25 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 8D 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 OR GORDON D. SCHABER COURTHOUSE. ALL HEARINGS WILL TAKE PLACE AT THIS NEW LOCATION.***

Plaintiffs Allegra Aquil-Sims’ (“Sims”) and Gregory Harriel’s (“Harriel”) (collectively “Plaintiffs”) motion for terminating sanctions and request for entry of default is UNOPPOSED and GRANTED.

This is a negligence action arising for a multivehicle collision that resulted in the deaths of Plaintiffs’ mother Bennie Harriel and Sims’ son Tayarrie Darwin Hatchett-Sims (“Hatchett- Sims”). As alleged in Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint, filed May 13, 2021, defendant Brian Ramirez (“Ramirez”) was operating a tow truck in the course and scope of his employment with codefendant Brocco Motors, LLC (“Brocco Motors”) when it collided with a vehicle carrying Hatchett-Sims, resulting in his death. Ramirez and Brocco Motors filed a joint Answer on October 8, 2021.

Om April 3, 2025, this Court granted Plaintiffs’ unopposed motions to compel the appearance of Ramirez and Brocco Motors’ Person Most Qualified (“PMQ”) at deposition. (Min. Order [Ramirez] and Min. Order [Brocco Motors], April 3, 2025.) The Court’s orders found that Plaintiffs had noticed Ramirez’s deposition twice since 2023 and had noticed Brocco Motors’ PMQ’s deposition five times since 2021. The Court ordered both Ramirez and Brocco Motors’ PMQ to appear at deposition by May 3, 2025. The Court also granted monetary sanctions against Defendants.

After Defendants again failed to appear for deposition, Plaintiffs filed a motion to strike Defendants’ Answer. On December 31, 2025, this Court denied Plaintiffs’ motion to strike Defendants’ Answer on the grounds that Plaintiffs had failed to file any further motions to compel compliance with the Court’s orders or request sanctions for failure to comply. (Min. Order, Dec. 31, 2025.) However, in its order, the Court again ordered Defendants to appear for their depositions by January 30, 2026. (Ibid.) The Court advised that Defendants’ failure to

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2019-00264029-CU-PA-GDS: Allegra Aquil-Sims vs. Brian A Ramirez 05/27/2026 Hearing on Motion for Terminating Sanctions and for Entry of Default Against defs in Department 8D

comply with such order may result in the imposition of serious sanctions, including terminating sanctions. (Ibid.)

According to the declaration of Plaintiffs’ counsel, despite meet-and-confer efforts with Defendants’ counsel and the Court’s orders, neither Defendant has appeared for deposition, (Minney Decl., ¶¶ 8, 11.) Defendants have also failed to pay the Court ordered sanctions. (Id. at ¶ 8.) After Defendants failed to appear at the trial on January 12, 2026, Plaintiffs were granted a continuance to April 13, 2026, so that they could file the present motion. (Id. at ¶ 14.) Plaintiffs seek terminating sanctions in the form of an order striking Defendants’ Answer and entering Defendants’ default.

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 Civ. Proc., §§ 2023.010, subds. (d), (g), 2023.030, subds. (d)(1), (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.)

Defendants’ multiple failures to comply with the Court’s orders constitute a misuse of the discovery process warranting terminating sanctions. The Court previously imposed monetary sanctions and warned Defendant that failure to comply could result in serious sanctions. Further, as with the previous motions, Defendant failed to oppose the instant motion. A party’s failure to oppose a motion is construed as a concession on the merits of the motion. (See D.I. Chadbourne, Inc. v. Superior Court (1964) 60 Cal.2d 723, 728, n.4.)

Because Defendants have now twice failed to timely comply with the Court’s orders, despite the original imposition of monetary sanctions for failure to comply with discovery obligations, and because, for the second time, Defendants do not oppose the motion seeking such relief, the Court concludes that terminating sanctions are appropriate as Defendants have essentially abandoned the action. The Court does not view its decision lightly; it is only after considering Defendants’ actions in failing to obey prior court orders, and failing to oppose the instant motion or present any credible reason for their actions, that the Court reaches the result announced.

Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED. The Court will impose terminating sanctions against Defendants in the form of an order striking the jointly filed Answer to the Complaint, filed on October 8, 2021. Therefore, Defendants’ Answer is hereby STRICKEN. The clerk of court is ordered to enter the defaults of Defendant Brian Ramirez and Defendant Brocco Motors, LLC.

Plaintiffs to provide notice of this ruling and file proof of service of the same no later than June 3, 2026.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2019-00264029-CU-PA-GDS: Allegra Aquil-Sims vs. Brian A Ramirez 05/27/2026 Hearing on Motion for Terminating Sanctions and for Entry of Default Against defs in Department 8D

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.)