RINGGOLD vs BURGETT INC., et al.

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

***NOTICE: EFFECTIVE APRIL 13, 2026, THIS DEPARTMENT HAS MOVED TO THE TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE COURTHOUSE LOCATED AT 500 G STREET SACRAMENTO, CA. ALL MOTIONS NOTICED FOR DEPARTMENT 28 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 8C 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***

Plaintiff in pro per Edward Ringgold’s (“Plaintiff”) motion for an order appointing him counsel in this civil action is DENIED.

The notice of motion does not provide notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system, as required by Local Rule 1.06. Plaintiff is directed to contact opposing counsel and advise of Local Rule 1.06 and the Court’s tentative ruling procedure and the manner to request a hearing. If Plaintiff is unable to contact opposing counsel prior to the hearing, Plaintiff is ordered to appear at the hearing by Zoom or in person.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV006400: RINGGOLD vs BURGETT INC., et al. 07/06/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other for Court-Appointed Counsel in Department 8C

This action arises out of an employment dispute in which Plaintiff alleges he was wrongfully terminated by Defendant Burgett Inc. dba Pianodisc (“Defendant”) after he complained that his salary was being reduced due to his request to work remotely at the beginning of the Covid-19 pandemic due to a medical condition. The operative Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) contains 11 causes of action. The SAC also names Defendants Kirk G. Burgett, Lisa Burgett, and Thomas Lagormarsino (collectively, “Individual Defendants”) (collectively with Defendant, “Defendants”).

On September 5, 2024, the Court granted Defendant’s motion to declare Plaintiff a vexatious litigant but denied without prejudice the concurrent request for an order requiring Plaintiff to post a security on the basis that Defendant did not submit evidence to support the imposition of a security. On November 6, 2025, the Court denied Defendant’s renewed motion for Plaintiff to post a security. Defendant then filed an Answer to the SAC on November 18, 2025, while Individual Defendants filed Answers on January 9, 2026.

In the present motion, Plaintiff contends that good cause exists for the Court to appoint him counsel in this matter for the following reasons: (1) Plaintiff has documented disabilities affecting his mental and physical capabilities; (2) this case presents complex procedural and substantive issues; (3) plaintiff’s efforts to meet and confer on certain issues and to negotiate a settlement have been ignored; (4) there is a pending motion for summary adjudication filed by Plaintiff with a hearing date of July 20, 2026; (5) Plaintiff’s health has deteriorated during the pendency of this case due to the stresses of litigation; and (6) counsel is needed in advance of the case management conference scheduled for August 28, 2026 “to ensure effective case management, potential settlement, and preparation for trial.” (Motion, pp. 4:21-5:6.)

Generally, there is no right to court-appointed counsel in a civil action. (Hunt v. Hackett (1973) 26 Cal.App.3d 134, 137-138.) Plaintiff does not provide any authority that would support appointing counsel for him in this case. Plaintiff cites In re Sara D. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 661, but that case involved the appointment of a guardian ad litem for an incompetent adult in a juvenile dependency proceeding. Plaintiff also cites In re Marriage of Harrison (1986) 179 Cal.App.3d 1216, but nothing in that opinion addresses the appointment of counsel for a civil litigant.

Plaintiff then cites to Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) in contending that courts are obligated to provide meaningful access to litigants with disabilities. Plaintiff also cites to Government Code section 11135 in arguing that the Court, as a “State entity,” must provide services without discrimination on the basis of disability. However, even accepting that Plaintiff has established that he has a disability under these authorities, he has not shown that this entitles him to appointed counsel. Plaintiff has not established that his disabilities render him unable to pay for an attorney or to perform the tasks necessary to select and hire an attorney. More

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV006400: RINGGOLD vs BURGETT INC., et al. 07/06/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other for Court-Appointed Counsel in Department 8C

importantly, Plaintiff has not provided any authority that appointment of counsel is required as an accommodation under the ADA or Government Code section 11135.

Finally, Plaintiff contends due process requires that he be given an opportunity to be meaningfully heard, and argues that “[w]here disability impairs meaningful participation, appointment of counsel is warranted.” (Motion, p. 4:18.) Plaintiff has not shown that he has been unable to meaningfully participate in this case. Indeed, the Court’s register of actions for this matter suggests that Plaintiff has actively participated in this case from its inception, including by filing three iterations of a detailed, comprehensive complaint, making and opposing motions, and appearing at hearings.

Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion for an order appointing him counsel is DENIED.

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.)