Motion for Sanctions
Therefore, the Court awards a total of $9,568.04 consisting of $6,930 in fees and $2,638.04 in costs.
If no one requests oral argument, under Code of Civil Procedure section 1019.5(a) and California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), no further written order is necessary. The minute order adopting this tentative ruling will become the order of the court and service by the clerk will constitute notice of the order.
Court reporters are usually not available for law and motion matters in the civil division. The parties and counsel must provide their own reporter if they want a transcript of the proceedings.
Re: Rideout, Jazzmin vs. First Pitch Entertainment, LLC et al Case No.: VCU329435 Date: May 14, 2026 Time: 8:30 A.M. Dept. 1-The Honorable David C. Mathias Motion: Plaintiff's Motion to Lift Stay of Proceedings Pending Appeal Tentative Ruling: To grant the motion, exclusive of all matters wherein the statutory stay under CCP 916 applies.
Plaintiff Jazzmin Rideout moves to lift the stay of this matter, which was ordered incident to Rideout's appeal of this court's order denying her prior motion to enjoin defendant First Pitch Entertainment, LLC, from further contact with putative class members, and for set aside of prior settlements with putative class members (and for sanctions).
Both parties cite Code of Civil Procedure section 916, subdivision (a), which states, in pertinent part and subject to exceptions not relevant here, "the perfecting of an appeal stays proceedings in the trial court upon the ... order appealed from or upon the matters embraced therein or affected thereby..., but the trial court may proceed upon any other matter embraced in the action and not affected by the ... order."
Rideout's motion, ultimately, calls for a narrow determination: That there is no stay in this case broader or different in scope than that arising automatically under section 916. Insofar as that narrow determination is called for, it is appropriate to make it here.
Both parties observe that the only sound legal basis for a stay in this case incident to Rideout's appeal is the automatic stay arising under 916. Accordingly, the court finds Rideout's motion should be granted so that the court's prior stay order is not interpreted to create continuing uncertainty as to the scope of matters stayed by the perfecting of Rideout's appeal.
The court does not purport, here, to decide what matters may or may not properly proceed incident to the automatic stay in effect under section 916; it merely confirms that section 916 defines the entirety of any stay now in effect incident to Rideout's appeal.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
If no one requests oral argument, under Code of Civil Procedure section 1019.5(a) and California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), no further written order is necessary. The minute order adopting this tentative ruling will become the order of the court and service by the clerk will constitute notice of the order.
Court reporters are usually not available for law and motion matters in the civil division. The parties and counsel must provide their own reporter if they want a transcript of the proceedings.
Re: Arreola Rodriguez, Jorge vs. Ford Motor Company, a Delaware Corporation et al Case No.: VCU329584 Date: June 4, 2026 Time: 8:30 A.M. Dept. 1-The Honorable David C. Mathias Motion: Motion for Sanctions Tentative Ruling: To find the motion to compel the disclosures moot by the April 28, 2026 disclosures by Defendant; to deny the motion as to the request for sanctions.
Facts On December 23, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a complaint alleging violations of the Song-Beverly Act.
On February 10, 2026, Defendant Ford filed its Answer. Plaintiffs note that Defendant Ford has opted into being governed by Code of Civil Procedure section 871.20, et. seq. Therefore, Plaintiff argues Defendant's initial disclosure and document exchange deadline was April 10, 2026, sixty days after the filing of the answer.
Defendant Ford did not provide any document production, and as of the filing of this motion on April 27, 2026, Ford has not made any required disclosures. Plaintiffs note failures to comply with these requirements in other cases. Plaintiffs seek monetary sanctions of $2,500 under Code of Civil Procedure Section 871.26(b) and (j)(1) and for evidentiary sanctions under 871.26(b).
In opposition, Defendant states, in support of good cause: "3. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 871.26, subdivision (b), Ford's initial disclosures were due within 60 days of its Answer, making the deadline April 10, 2026.
4. In the period following the filing of Ford's Answer and prior to the April 10, 2026 deadline, the attorney originally assigned to handle this matter left the firm. As a result of this transition, the deadline for serving Ford's initial disclosures was inadvertently missed.
5. Ford's counsel first became aware that the initial disclosures had not been served upon receipt of Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions on or about April 27, 2026.
6. Immediately upon learning of the oversight, Ford took prompt corrective action. Ford served its initial disclosures and accompanying document production on April 28, 2026." (Declaration of Wang P.P.3-4.) As such, Ford argues no sanctions are warranted.
Authority and Analysis This mandatory disclosure law, enacted January 1, 2025 applies to "civil action[s] seeking restitution or replacement of a motor vehicle pursuant to Section 871.20." This Song Beverly action, therefore, is within the scope of this law.
"Within 60 days after the filing of the answer or other responsive pleading, all parties shall, without awaiting a discovery request, provide to all other parties an initial disclosure and documents pursuant to subdivisions (f), (g), and (h)." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 871.26, subd. (b).)
Subsection (h), applicable to Defendant Ford, requires: (h) The defendant or manufacturer shall provide the following documents to all other parties pursuant to the timelines prescribed in subdivision (b): (1) Copy of or access to a version of the owner's manual for a motor vehicle of the same make, model, and year. (2) Any warranties issued in conjunction with the sale of the motor vehicle. (3) Sample brochures published for the motor vehicle. (4) The motor vehicle's original invoice, if any, to the selling dealer. (5) Sales or lease agreement, if the manufacturer is in possession. (6) Motor vehicle information reports, including build documentation, component information, and delivery details. (7) Entire warranty transaction history for the motor vehicle. (8) Listing of required field actions applicable to the motor vehicle. (9) Published technical service bulletins ("TSBs") for the same make, model, and year reasonably related to the nonconformities pertaining to the motor vehicle. (10) Published information service bulletins ("ISBs") for the same make, model, and year reasonably related to the nonconformities pertaining to the motor vehicle. (11) Records relating to communications between the manufacturer or dealership and the owner or lessee of the motor vehicle, including those related to repair orders or claims involving the motor vehicle. (12) Warranty policies and procedure manuals. (13) Service manuals reasonably related to the nonconformities pertaining to the motor vehicle. (14) If a pre-suit restitution or replacement request is made, all call recordings of pre-suit communications with the consumer available at the time of service of the complaint. (15) If a pre-suit restitution or replacement request is made, the manufacturer's written statement of policies and procedures used to evaluate customer requests for restitution or replacement pursuant to "Lemon Law" claims. (16) If a pre-suit restitution or replacement request is made, any nonprivileged, prelitigation evaluation. (17) Any warranty extensions or modifications issued by the manufacturer on the motor vehicle."
Here, Plaintiff represents that none of the requisite disclosures have been timely made. Ford admits to the untimely disclosure approximately 18 days after the deadline.
As to sanctions, subsection (j) states: "(j) Unless the party failing to comply with this section shows good cause, notwithstanding any other law and in addition to any other sanctions imposed pursuant to this chapter, a court shall impose sanctions as follows: (1) A one-thousand-five-hundred-dollar ($1,500) sanction against the plaintiff's attorney or two-thousand-five-hundred-dollar ($2,500) sanction against the defense attorney respectively, paid within 15 business days for failure to comply with the document production requirements as prescribed in subdivision (b)..."
As to good cause for the failure to provide the required disclosures within 60 days of the demurrer, the Court finds sufficient good cause based on the declaration of counsel as to the unintentional failure to make the initial disclosures. Therefore, the Court denies the motion as to the requests for sanctions and finds the request to compel the disclosures moot by the April 28, 2026 production.
If no one requests oral argument, under Code of Civil Procedure section 1019.5(a) and California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), no further written order is necessary. The minute order adopting this tentative ruling will become the order of the court and service by the clerk will constitute notice of the order.
Court reporters are usually not available for law and motion matters in the civil division. The parties and counsel must provide their own reporter if they want a transcript of the proceedings.
Re: Pierce, Ronald vs. Singlepoint Outsourcing Case No.: VCU314801 Date: June 4, 2026 Time: 8:30 A.M. Dept. 1-The Honorable David C. Mathias Motion: Continued Motion for Preliminary Approval Tentative Ruling: To grant the motion and preliminarily approve the settlement, as modified herein; to set the motion for final approval for January 14, 2027; 8:30 am; D1.
Background
Facts At the prior hearing on April 30, 2026, the Court continued this matter and ordered a supplemental declaration as to calculating the lodestar, information regarding the presently incurred costs of counsel and the amount of the administrative costs.
On May 15, 2026, counsel for Plaintiff filed a supplemental declaration addressing these issues. At the prior hearing on May 21, 2025, Plaintiff's counsel requested oral argument and this matter was continued to this hearing date.