SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 24CV009335: PEREZ vs MARIA ZARAGOZA DBA NEW DELUX BEAUTY SALON, A BUSINESS ENTITY 06/03/2026 Hearing on Motion for Terminating Sanctions 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, located at the Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye Courthouse located 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 at (916) 874-2615, 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

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

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…

Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Other rulings by Richard C. Miadich Judge Richard C. Miadich dossier Other Motion for Sanctions in SACRAMENTO All SACRAMENTO County rulings Other Civil cases Other denied rulings in SACRAMENTO

Related rulings

by semantic similarity

Source

Print-friendly view

. 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 Courts 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 Reporters 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 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**** Defendant Maria Zaragoza dba New Delux Beauty Salons (Defendant) motion for terminating sanctions against Plaintiff Yolanda Perez (Plaintiff) is unopposed but is DENIED.

On January 17, 2025, Plaintiffs former counsel served the Courts order granting his motion to be relieved as counsel. Plaintiff has since been self-represented.

Plaintiff was served on February 11, 2025, with special interrogatories and a demand for production of documents. (Decl. Carron, ¶ 4.)

After Plaintiff failed to respond, Defendant filed motions to compel responses to discovery. Plaintiff did not oppose the motions and the Court granted Defendants motions and ordered Plaintiff to serve verified written responses, without objections, to (1) the Special Interrogatories and (2) Demand for Production of Documents by December 24, 2025. (December 10, 2025 Orders).

Plaintiff failed to comply with the Courts orders compelling discovery. Defendants counsel does not represent that he made any effort to meet and confer with Plaintiff regarding her failure to comply with the Courts order.

Defendant now moves the Court for terminating sanctions. Defendant does not alternatively request an order compelling responses to form interrogatories, issue or evidentiary sanctions, or monetary sanctions.

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.) In ordering terminating sanctions, 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.) Terminating sanctions are to be used sparingly because of the drastic effect of their application. (Lopez v. Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York, Inc. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 566, 604.) Accordingly, sanctions are generally imposed in an incremental approach, with terminating sanctions being a last resort. (Ibid.)

However, even under the Civil Discovery Act’s incremental approach, the trial court may impose terminating sanctions as a first measure in extreme cases, or where the record shows that lesser sanctions would be ineffective. (Lopez, at pp. 604-605; see Van Sickle v. Gilbert (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1495, 1516-1519.)

The Court finds that terminating sanctions would be unnecessarily punitive in nature, and that an incremental approach would more appropriately address the facts herein. In addition, while the Court notes the upcoming July 20, 2026 trial date, Defendant provides no explanation for Defendants long delay is seeking to enforce Defendants February 2025 discovery requests.

Defendants request for terminating sanctions is DENIED.

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