Zheng v. Cisternino CA1/1

Filed 10/8/25 Zheng v. Cisternino CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

XIAO YI ZHENG, Plaintiff and Appellant, A169850 v. MICHAEL CISTERNINO, (Contra Costa County Sup. Court No. C2202021) Defendant and Respondent.

Plaintiff Xiao Yi Zheng and his counsel, David Sturgeon-Garcia,1 appeal from the trial court’s order imposing monetary sanctions against them for misusing the discovery process. We affirm. I. BACKGROUND

Defendant Michael Cisternino is a real estate broker who acted as a dual agent representing Zheng, the owner of commercial real estate, and an entity that agreed to lease the property. Zheng filed this action against Cisternino, alleging he breached his fiduciary duty in brokering a deal that

1 Although Sturgeon-Garcia was not listed as a party on the notice of

appeal, we construe the notice to have included him because it appears reasonably clear that he intended to join in the appeal. (See K.J. v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist. (2020) 8 Cal.5th 875, 878.)

1

was favorable to the tenant with whom he was having a personal relationship. Cisternino cross-complained, alleging that Zheng failed to pay his commission and misrepresented the condition of the property. Discovery was initiated, and the sanctions order at issue in this appeal arose out of a dispute about Cisternino’s second set of requests for production of documents. In his responses to the requests, Zheng asserted numerous and lengthy objections. Cisternino’s attorney, Daniel King, sent a detailed, nine-page letter setting forth his client’s position on the requests and asking Sturgeon-Garcia to meet and confer about the dispute. King expressed the “hope that by raising these issues now, we may avoid unnecessary motion practice.” Nothing in our record indicates that Sturgeon-Garcia responded to the letter. King also twice asked Sturgeon-Garcia for an extension of time for him to file a motion to compel to allow the parties time to meet and confer, but again nothing in our record indicates that Sturgeon-Garcia responded. Cisternino proceeded by filing a motion to compel further responses to the requests and seeking sanctions in the amount of $14,380.50 The motion was supported by a declaration from an attorney associated with King’s law firm and a separate statement filed under California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1345. Zheng, acting through Sturgeon-Garcia, opposed the motion to compel and the request for sanctions by defending some, but not all, of the objections that he had asserted. He also sought cross-sanctions against Cisternino. A hearing was held, and although a tentative ruling was apparently issued, it is not contained in our record. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court adopted its tentative ruling, granting Cisternino’s motion to compel and sanctioning Zheng and Sturgeon-Garcia in the amount of $9,082.50.