RIOS vs LGA MANAGEMENT, LLC, et al.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 25CV003941: RIOS vs LGA MANAGEMENT, LLC, et al. 06/03/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set one in Department 8D

Tentative Ruling NOTICE: Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on this calendar must comply with the following procedure: To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615 by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the hearing and advise opposing counsel. At the time of requesting oral argument, the requesting party shall leave a voice mail 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 it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and that opposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below.

If no request for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court. Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely either telephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with notice to the Court and all other parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure §367.75. Although remote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely for non-evidentiary civil hearings.

The Department 8D Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16113421868 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 1342 1868. To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NO COURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED. 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 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. 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 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

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 25CV003941: RIOS vs LGA MANAGEMENT, LLC, et al. 06/03/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set one 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. ALL HEARINGS WILL TAKE PLACE AT THIS NEW LOCATION**** TENTATIVE RULING:

The motion of Defendants Hartman Handyman Services, LLC and Tytus Hartman ("Defendants") to compel the initial responses Plaintiff in pro per Gabriela Rios (“Plaintiff”) to their propounded form interrogatories, set one, and request for sanctions, is ruled upon as follows.

This is a personal injury action. (See Complaint.) Plaintiff filed her Complaint on February 19, 2025. Defendants filed their Cross-Complaint on March 21, 2025. A trial date is not yet set in this matter

On March 21, 2025, Defendants served Plaintiff with the subject form interrogatories, set one. (Walsh Decl., ¶ 3, Exhibit A.) Plaintiff further represents, that at the time of this motion, and despite meet and confer attempts with both Plaintiff’s former counsel and Plaintiff (after Plaintiff’s former counsel substituted out of the case), no responses were provided to the subject discovery. (See Id., ¶¶ 4-6, Exhibit B.)

Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to Defendants’ motion and thus Plaintiff has failed to oppose the motion on its merits. 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, fn.4.)

Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to compel the initial responses of Plaintiff to the subject discovery is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall serve verified responses, without objections, to Defendants’ form interrogatories, set one, no later than June 17, 2026.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 25CV003941: RIOS vs LGA MANAGEMENT, LLC, et al. 06/03/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set one in Department 8D

Defendants also requests sanctions in the amount of $622.50. (Notice of Motion at 2:8.) The request for sanctions is DENIED as the motion was not opposed. Although California Rules of Court, rule 3.1348, purports to authorize sanctions if the motion is unopposed, the Court declines to do so, as the specific statutes governing this discovery authorize sanctions against a party who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion. Any order imposing sanctions under the CRC must conform to the conditions of one or more of the statutes authorizing sanctions. (Trans-Action Commercial Investors, Ltd. v.

Firmaterr, Inc. (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 352, 355.) However, the Court cautions that repeated conduct of failing to comply with discovery obligations may lead the Court to find an abuse of the discovery process and award sanctions on that basis. (Laguna Auto Body v. Farmers Ins. Exchange (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 481.)

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1019.5; Cal. Rules Court, rule 3.1312.)