VERHOEVEN, et al. vs WANG, et al.

24CV026098: VERHOEVEN, et al. vs WANG, et al. 06/10/2026 Hearing on Motion for Order Directing Compliance with Subpoena for Deposition of Witness Maciah Fullwood in Department 8D

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to “Public Notice – Civil Division – Wednesday Law and Motion Calendar” any oral arguments regarding this tentative ruling will be heard in Department 8D, located at 500 G Street, Sacramento, CA, the Hon. Julie G. Yap presiding. Should argument be requested by either party, the requesting party 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, request the hearing, and notify the opposing party of the location and time of hearing pursuant to Local Rule 1.06.

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.

The Court encourages parties to appear remotely for the hearing on the tentative ruling through the Court’s Zoom Application. But, any party wishing to appear in person may do so, provided that party notifies the Court by 4:00 the Court day before the hearing. 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/16113421868 SIP Address: 16113421868@sip.zoomgov.com (833) 568-8864 ID: 16113421868 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 and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with

24CV026098: VERHOEVEN, et al. vs WANG, et al. 06/10/2026 Hearing on Motion for Order Directing Compliance with Subpoena for Deposition of Witness Maciah Fullwood in Department 8D

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 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

Defendant Anibal Perez’s (“Defendant”) motion for an order compelling third-party witness Maciah Fullwood (“Fullwood”) to comply with Defendant’s Deposition Subpoena for Personal Appearance is UNOPPOSED and GRANTED as follows.

This action arises out of a collision which occurred on August 10, 2023 at approximately 10:24 pm on Highway 99 in the County of Sacramento. Decedent, Alexander Verhoeven (“Decedent”) was riding his motorcycle at the time of the collision. Defendant explains in her moving papers that Decedent “caused his motorcycle to strike the rear of a 2016 Acura being driven by co-defendant Michael Wang.” (Moving MPA at 3:13-15.) Decedent was then thrown from his motorcycle and was thereafter struck in succession by multiple vehicles” including by Defendant, who was operating her 1999 Lexus. (Id., at 3:15-17.)

Defendant further explains that Fullwood was listed as an “independent witness” on the Traffic Collision Report prepared by the California Highway Patrol. (See Declaration of Christian B. Green ¶ 1, Exhibit A.) The Traffic Collision Report sets forth a statement that is represented to be provided by Fullwood. (Id. at Exhibit A.)

Decedent’s parents, James Verhoeven and Karen Verhoeven, filed this action for wrongful death on December 23, 2024.

This matter was originally set to be heard on May 6, 2026. At a hearing on a related matter on May 4, 2026, Defendant’s counsel represented that a subpoena, utilizing the

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV026098: VERHOEVEN, et al. vs WANG, et al. 06/10/2026 Hearing on Motion for Order Directing Compliance with Subpoena for Deposition of Witness Maciah Fullwood in Department 8D

proper form, had been served on Fullwood but was inadvertently not included in Defendant’s moving papers. Accordingly, the Court continued this matter to allow Defendant to file and properly serve a supplemental declaration with the original subpoena and proof of service on the subpoena on all parties. This Court’s order specified the declaration must be served no later than 16 court days prior to the continued hearing and that service on the non-party shall be by personal service.

On May 7, 2026, Defendant filed a supplemental declaration from her counsel, Christian Green. Mr. Green avers that while he inadvertently did not produce the Deposition Subpoena for Personal Appearance regarding non-party witness Fullwood, the subpoena was properly issued and personally served on Fullwood. (Green Decl., at ¶ 2.) Mr. Green also attaches a copy of the subpoena to his declaration. (Green Decl., at Exhibit C.)

Defendant has also filed two proofs of service related to the supplemental briefing, indicating that Plaintiff’s counsel was email served with the supplemental declaration by email on May 7, 2026 and that the non-party was personally served with the supplemental declaration and the May 6, 2026 Minute Order on May 8, 2026.

Accordingly, there is now evidence before the Court that a deposition subpoena was properly issued and served on Fullwood. Moreover, as discussed in this Court’s May 6, 2026 Order, Defendant has already produced evidence that Fullwood failed to appear at the scheduled deposition and did not object or otherwise respond to any served material. Furthermore, Fullwood has not opposed this motion, which the Court construes as a concession on the merits. (See D.I. Chadbourne, Inc. v. Superior Court (1964) 60 Cal.2d 723, 728, n.4.)

Thus, for the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s motions is GRANTED. Fullwood shall comply with the deposition subpoena no later than July 1, 2026.

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