Angela Ramirez vs. Pacific Gas & Electric Company

34-2019-00255681-CU-OE-GDS: Angela Ramirez vs. Pacific Gas & Electric Company 08/20/2025 Hearing on Motion - Other for Request for Judgment Consolidating Two Prior Sanctions Orders in Department 53

Tentative Ruling

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 25, located at 720 9th 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/my/sscdept25 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

34-2019-00255681-CU-OE-GDS: Angela Ramirez vs. Pacific Gas & Electric Company 08/20/2025 Hearing on Motion - Other for Request for Judgment Consolidating Two Prior Sanctions Orders in Department 53

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 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.

Tentative Ruling

Defendant PG&E's 'Request For Judgment Consolidating Two Prior Sanctions Orders and Requesting Additional Monetary Sanctions' is unopposed and is GRANTED IN PART, as follows:

On February 8, 2024, the Court granted PG&E's request for monetary sanctions in the amount of $2,375. On March 26, 2024, PG&E served Plaintiff with a Notice of Ruling of Sanctions Motion. Plaintiff did not respond or challenge the order. (Young Decl., ¶ 12.) As of the date of the present motion, Plaintiff has not paid the subject sanctions in any amount, despite the fact that sanctions were ordered to be paid by February 29, 2024. (Young Decl., ¶ 13.)

On June 27, 2024, the Court granted PG&E’s request for monetary sanctions in the amount of $2,850. On July 10, 2024, PG&S served Plaintiff with a Notice of Ruling on Sanctions Motion. (Young Decl., ¶ 16.) As of the date of the present motion, Plaintiff has not paid the subject sanctions in any amount, despite the fact that sanctions were ordered to be paid by July 29, 2024.

PG&E now seeks an order consolidating these sanctions orders, so that PG&E may file a single writ of execution to enforce the sanctions awards, as the Court previously rejected PG&E’s efforts to file two separate writs of execution. PG&E also seeks interest in the amount of 10%, and additional sanctions representing the costs of pursuing the present motion, in the amount of $3,450.

Plaintiff has not filed any opposition to this motion, despite the motion being timely served.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2019-00255681-CU-OE-GDS: Angela Ramirez vs. Pacific Gas & Electric Company 08/20/2025 Hearing on Motion - Other for Request for Judgment Consolidating Two Prior Sanctions Orders in Department 53

PG&E’s request for a “judgment” is DENIED, as this litigation remains pending, and the Court will not issue a judgment in violation of the one final judgment rule. It appears that PG&E requests a “judgment” as part of a misunderstanding of Newland v. Superior Court (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 608, wherein the Second District Court of Appeal observed that “monetary sanction orders are enforceable through the execution of judgment laws [Citation.] These orders have the force and effect of a money judgment, and are immediately enforceable through execution ” (Id., at p. 615.) This language does not suggest that the Court should issue a judgment regarding sanctions orders, rather that sanctions orders may be enforceable in the same manner as money judgments.

Thus, PG&E’s request to consolidate the separate sanctions orders into a single order for purposes of enforcement is GRANTED, but to the extent PG&E requests the Court issue a judgment consolidating the sanctions orders, such request is DENIED.

With respect to PG&E’s request that the Court include interest at 10% from the dates the subject payments became delinquent, this request is DENIED. PG&E does not provide any legal authority for imposition of interest other than to provide copies of a “Judgment Calculator” identifying the sanctions amounts as “judgment amount” and calculating interest at 10%. The Court’s prior orders do not discuss the accumulation of interest, and the Court finds PG&E has not established it is entitled to interest on the prior sanctions orders, as part of this motion to consolidate the subject orders. The Court issues no opinion as to whether interest may be appropriate in connection with enforcement of the sanctions orders.

With respect to PG&E’s request for sanctions resulting from the preparation of the present motion, that request is also DENIED. PG&E cites to authority for holding a party in contempt, but has not requested the Court hold Plaintiff in contempt. PG&E also cites to Code of Civil Procedure section 177.5, permitting monetary sanctions up to $1,500 for “any violation of a lawful court order, done without good cause or substantial justification.” Section 177.5 was not cited in the Notice of Motion, and the Court does not find that imposition of such sanctions is appropriate in this matter. PG&E also cites to section 2023.010, subdivision (a), however this subdivision permits sanctions for “persisting, over objection and without substantial justification, in an attempt to obtain information or materials that are outside the scope of permissible discovery.” Such subdivision is not applicable.

PG&E’s request for the imposition of additional sanctions is, therefore, DENIED.

Should PG&E desire the Court to issue a formal order, it shall submit a modified proposed order, in accordance with the Court’s ruling on this matter.