CHANNEL PARTNERS CAPITAL, LLC, A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, D/B/A CHANNEL PARTNERS EQUIPMENT FINANCE vs LOWBRAU BIER GARTEN, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, 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.

24CV018126: CHANNEL PARTNERS CAPITAL, LLC, A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, D/B/A CHANNEL PARTNERS EQUIPMENT FINANCE vs LOWBRAU BIER GARTEN, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, et al. 05/28/2026 Hearing on Motion for Terminating Sanctions in Department 16D

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 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 53 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 16D 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. PARTIES MAY CONTINUE TO APPEAR REMOTELY IN DEPARTMENT 16D UNLESS SPECIFICALLY ORDERED OTHERWISE. ***

TENTATIVE RULING: Plaintiff Channel Partners Capital, LLC’s unopposed motion for terminating sanctions directed to self-represented Defendant Michael Hagis is granted.

On September 3, 2025, the Court granted Plaintiff’s unopposed motions to compel Defendant Hagis’s further responses to requests for admission and requests for production (sets one). Defendant was ordered to serve amended responses no later than October 3, 2025. No sanctions were imposed in connection with the motion to compel responses. After Defendant failed to comply, Plaintiff moved for terminating sanctions. On February 26, 2026, this Court denied Plaintiff’s previous motion for terminating sanctions. However, the Court did again order Defendant to serve the responses. The responses were to be served no later than March 26, 2026. The Court also cautioned that Defendant’s failure to comply could lead to an inference that he has abandoned the action and may result in the imposition of more severe sanctions.

According to Plaintiff, Defendant still has not served the Court ordered amended responses. Plaintiff now moves for an order striking Defendant’s answer as a terminating sanction. Once again, as with all the underlying motions, the instant motion is unopposed. The Court notes that Defendant has been self-represented since July 14, 2025. (See Proof of Service of Order Granting Motion to be Relieved, dated July 15, 2025.) However, self-represented parties such as Defendant are not entitled to special treatment and are required to follow the same procedural rules that govern civil

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV018126: CHANNEL PARTNERS CAPITAL, LLC, A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, D/B/A CHANNEL PARTNERS EQUIPMENT FINANCE vs LOWBRAU BIER GARTEN, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, et al. 05/28/2026 Hearing on Motion for Terminating Sanctions in Department 16D

litigation as represented parties. (Nelson v. Gaunt (1981) 125 Cal. App.3d 623, 638- 639;McComber v. Wells (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 512, 522-523; Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1246-1247; Barton v. New United Motor Manufacturing, Inc. (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 1200, 1210).

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. CCP §§ 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.)

Defendant’s multiple failures to comply with the Court’s orders constitute a misuse of the discovery process warranting terminating sanctions. The Court has given Defendant multiple opportunities to provide the Court ordered responses. The Court has also warned that a failure to comply could result in serious sanctions, including terminating sanctions. Further, as with the previous motions, Defendant failed to oppose the instant motion. The Court construes Defendant’s failure to oppose the motion as a concession on the merits. (D.I. Chadbourne, Inc. v. Superior Court (1964) 60 Cal.2d 723, 728, fn. 4 [where nonmoving party fails to oppose a ground for a motion “it is assumed that [nonmoving party] concedes” that ground].) Terminating sanctions are appropriate. Defendant has essentially abandoned the action.

The motion is granted. Defendant’s answer to Plaintiff’s complaint is ordered stricken.

Plaintiff's request for the Court to enter Defendant's default made simultaneously with this motion is denied without prejudice as it was premature to make such request when submitted. Only upon the Court’s finalizing of this order may Plaintiff then commence default proceedings against Defendant, beginning with submitting a request for entry of default, given that Defendant's Answer will be stricken.

In light of the Court granting Plaintiff's motion, the Court declines to impose additional monetary sanctions. Therefore, Plaintiff's request for monetary sanctions is denied.

The notice of motion does not provide notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system as required by Local Rule 1.06(D). Plaintiff’s counsel is ordered to notify Defendant immediately of the tentative ruling system and to be available at the hearing in person, via Zoom or by telephone, in the event Defendant appears without following the

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV018126: CHANNEL PARTNERS CAPITAL, LLC, A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, D/B/A CHANNEL PARTNERS EQUIPMENT FINANCE vs LOWBRAU BIER GARTEN, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, et al. 05/28/2026 Hearing on Motion for Terminating Sanctions in Department 16D

procedures set forth in Local Rule 1.06(B).

The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312 or further notice is required.