HALL, et al. vs BIANCHI ESTATES LLC, et al.

24CV000150: HALL, et al. vs BIANCHI ESTATES LLC, et al. 04/16/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories Set One in Department 53

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 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.

24CV000150: HALL, et al. vs BIANCHI ESTATES LLC, et al. 04/16/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories Set One in Department 53

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 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:

Defendants Bianchi Estates, LLC, Lucienne Bianchi, Lindi Cano and Nicole Scott’s (“Defendants”) motion to compel Plaintiffs Brittney Hall, Michael Lyon, and Michael Nedderman’s (“Plaintiffs”) initial responses to Defendants’ special interrogatories, set one, is ruled upon as follows.

Defendants served the at-issue discovery and the instant motion by email service only. The Court notes that the email address used for service does not match the email address provided by Plaintiffs’ counsel on the Complaint. Thus, it is not clear that service was properly completed. Code of Civil Procedure section 1010.6, subdivision (b)(3) requires, “[b]efore first serving a represented person electronically, the person effecting service shall confirm the appropriate electronic service address for the counsel being served.” Defendants’ counsel shall, prior to or at the hearing, provide a declaration showing that the person who served the discovery requests and motion confirmed the appropriate electronic service address for Plaintiffs’ counsel.

If Defendants fail to provide evidence showing that they complied with Section 1010.6, subdivision (b)(3), then the motion shall be DROPPED due to defective service. Defective service deprives the court of jurisdiction to act. (Lee v. Placer Title Co. (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 503, 509.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV000150: HALL, et al. vs BIANCHI ESTATES LLC, et al. 04/16/2025 Hearing on Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories Set One in Department 53

If Defendants can show that they complied with Section 1010.6, subdivision (b)(3), then the motion is UNOPPOSED and GRANTED. 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, n.4.)

On June 27, 2024, Defendants served their first set of special interrogatories on Plaintiffs. (Declaration of Lindsey Goulding, ¶2.) Plaintiffs’ responses were due on or before July 29, 2024. (Id., ¶3.) On August 10, 2024 and September 26, 2024, Defendants’ counsel sent Plaintiffs’ counsel a meet and confer letters. (Id., ¶5.) As of the date of the declaration, Plaintiffs has not responded to the discovery or Defendants’ meet and confer attempts. (Id., ¶6.)

Defendants did not request sanctions.

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