23CV006400: RINGGOLD vs BURGETT INC., et al. 01/28/2026 Hearing on Motion for Sanctions Against Edward Ringgold Per Code of Civil Procedure Section 128.7 for Plaintiff's Motion to Enforce Court Order in Department 28

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that any oral arguments regarding this tentative ruling will be heard at 1:30 pm in Department 28, located at 720 9th Street, Sacramento, CA, the Hon. Richard C. Miadich presiding. Any party who wishes to contest the tentative ruling below must: (1) request a hearing by calling the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615, by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the noticed hearing date, and leave a voicemail 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 they have notified the opposing party of their intention to appear; and (2) advise the opposing party of the location and time of hearing pursuant to Local Rule 1.06.

If a hearing is not requested by 4:00 p.m. on the Court day before the noticed hearing date, the tentative ruling will become the final order of the Court. If a hearing is requested, the Court prefers in-person attendance by the parties. However, parties may appear by Zoom unless the Court specifically orders in-person attendance. Parties choosing to appear by Zoom are reminded, however, that a Zoom appearance is still a formal appearance before the Court. Parties appearing via Zoom should do so from a quiet location, free from undue distractions, and wear attire suitable for an in-person court appearance.

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/sscdept28 SIP Address: 16039062174@sip.zoomgov.com (833) 568-8864 ID: 16039062174

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

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…

Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Other rulings by Richard C. Miadich Judge Richard C. Miadich dossier Other Motion for Sanctions in SACRAMENTO All SACRAMENTO County rulings Other Civil cases Other denied rulings in SACRAMENTO

Related rulings

by semantic similarity

Source

Print-friendly view

. 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 Courts 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 Reporters Office and an official reporter will be provided.

Defendant Burgett Inc. dba Pianodiscs (Defendant) motions for sanctions against Plaintiff Edward Ringgold (Plaintiff) are jointly ruled upon as follows.

On September 16, 2024, Defendant filed its Motion for an Order Requiring Security from Plaintiff Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 391.1, resulting in an automatic stay of the action pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 391.6.

While the stay was in effect, Plaintiff filed a motion to enforce order, which was dropped by the Court because of the stay. Plaintiff also filed a motion to lift the stay proceedings.

On November 6, 2025, the Court denied Defendants motion for order requiring security, and the stay was lifted:

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

Since Defendant has not met its burden to show Plaintiff has no probability of prevailing on at least one of Plaintiffs causes of action, the motion for security must be DENIED.

The stay of litigation that went into effect when this motion was filed is terminated. Defendants shall respond to the SAC within 10 days of this order. (Code Civ. Proc. § 391.6.)

(November 25, 2025 Order.)

Defendants instant two motions seek sanctions against Plaintiff for bringing purportedly frivolous motions, all while the stay was in effect. Defendant relies on Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7.

The Court finds that sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7 are not warranted here against pro per Plaintiff. Defendant has not shown that Plaintiff acted in bad faith or without the belief that his motions had merit. Furthermore, neither underlying motion was ever ruled upon.

Defendants motions for sanctions are DENIED.

The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312 or further notice is required.