Kailie Armstrong vs. Lotus Investment Partners LLC

34-2021-00300268-CU-PO-GDS: Kailie Armstrong vs. Lotus Investment Partners LLC 06/18/2025 Hearing on Motion for Terminating Sanctions in Department 54

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that any oral arguments regarding this tentative ruling will be heard 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. 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

34-2021-00300268-CU-PO-GDS: Kailie Armstrong vs. Lotus Investment Partners LLC 06/18/2025 Hearing on Motion for Terminating Sanctions in Department 54

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 Tirath Sahota’s (“Defendant”) motion for terminating sanctions against Kailie Armstrong (“Plaintiff”) is UNOPPOSED and ruled upon as follows. Plaintiff filed her Complaint on May 6, 2021, while she was represented by counsel, individually and as successor-in-interest of her deceased minor son Amari Brown who was shot near a shopping center. Defendant Tirath Sahota was the owner of the 7-11 convenience store at the shopping center. This is Mr. Sahota’s second request for terminating sanctions. (Decl.

O’Brien-Kovari, ¶ 7.) This is the fourth motion to compel that Mr. Sahota has filed in this case. (Id.) All the prior discovery motions have been granted either in full or in part. (Id.) Co-defendants Rentmultiplier Corporation and Lotus Investment Partners, Inc. have also filed motions to compel in this case. (Id., ¶ 8.) Except for Mr. Sahota’s first motion to compel, Plaintiff has failed to file an opposition to any of the discovery motions – in other words, Plaintiff has failed to oppose the past five discovery motions filed against her. (Id.)

Plaintiff has failed to abide by the orders of the Court in this case. (Id. ¶ 9, Exhibit C, Exhibit D, and Exhibit F.) The first was on January 9, 2024. (O’Brien-Kovari Decl., ¶ 10, Exhibit C.) The Court’s Order required that Plaintiff (1) complete her deposition by February 9, 2024, and (2) answer several specific questions that she previously refused to answer. (Id.) The Court’s Order also awarded sanctions to Mr. Sahota in the amount of $3,304.00. (Id.) She has never complied with this order.

On May 7, 2024, the Court granted Mr. Sahota’s second motion to compel. (Decl. O’Brien- Kovari, ¶ 11, Exhibit D, May 7, 2024 Order.) The Court awarded Defendant sanctions in the amount of $2,389.50 and once again ordered her to appear for deposition. (Id.) She has complied with neither order. (Id.) The third order, on December 26, 2024, while denying terminating sanctions, imposed severe discovery sanctions precluding Plaintiff from introducing evidence of her “efforts to have a relationship with Decedent while Decedent was not in her custody” – i.e. the entirety of Decedent’s adolescent life. (Decl.

O’Brien-Kovari at ¶ 12, Exhibit

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2021-00300268-CU-PO-GDS: Kailie Armstrong vs. Lotus Investment Partners LLC 06/18/2025 Hearing on Motion for Terminating Sanctions in Department 54

E.) The December 26, 2024 order also imposed additional sanctions of $4,690 against Plaintiff, and yet another sanction of $5,192, and an additional $1,500 against her attorney personally (who was also made jointly and severally liable with Plaintiff for all sanctions.) (Id.) These new sanctions were ordered paid by January 16, 2025. (Id.) Neither Plaintiff, nor her counsel, have paid. Nor has counsel responded to multiple requests for a timeline regarding payment. (Id.) By Defendant’s calculation, Plaintiff and her counsel have incurred $17,075 in overdue sanctions. (Decl.

O’Brien-Kovari at ¶ 13.) The Court ordered Plaintiff to complete her deposition more than two years ago. (Id. at Exhibit C.) Defendant argues that Plaintiff has no intention of complying with these orders and emphasize that neither she nor her attorney have given any reason to believe that she will comply with any further orders of this Court. As of the filing of this motion, Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court’s Orders. Defendant again seeks terminating sanctions, or in the alternative an order deeming facts admitted to recent requests for admission that Plaintiff failed to respond to.

For misuse of the discovery process, including as is the case here, disobeying court orders to provide discovery, the Court may impose a terminating sanction by one of the following: an order striking out the pleadings or parts of the pleadings of any party engaging in the misuse of the discovery process or an order dismissing the action, or any part of the action, of that party. (See, e.g. CCP §§ 2023.010(d) and (g), 2023.030(d)(1) and (3).) The Court has broad discretion in selecting the appropriate sanctions under the factual circumstances before it. (Cedars-Sinai Medical Center v.

Superior Court (1998) 18 Cal.4th 1, 12.) The Court may impose sanctions that are suitable and necessary to enable the party seeking discovery to obtain the objects of the discovery he seeks, but the Court may not impose sanctions which are designed not to accomplish the objects of the discovery but to impose punishment. (Caryl Richards, Inc. v. Superior Court (1961) 188 Cal. App. 2d 300, 304.) “The penalty should be appropriate to the dereliction, and should not exceed that which is required to protect the interests of the party entitled to but denied discovery.” (Deyo v.

Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal. App. 3d 771, 793.) Terminating sanctions are to be used sparingly because of the drastic effect of their application. (Lopez v. Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York, Inc. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 566, 604.) Sanctions are generally imposed in an incremental approach, with terminating sanctions being a last resort. (Lopez v. Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York, Inc. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 566, 604.) The discovery statutes thus “evince an incremental approach to discovery sanctions, starting with monetary sanctions and ending with the ultimate sanction of termination.” (Doppes v.

Bentley Motors, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 967, 992, italics added.) The Court finds that Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the multiple orders in this case warrants terminating sanctions. Plaintiff has failed to comply with previous discovery orders, failed to oppose the first motion for terminating sanctions, and failed to oppose this instant motion. It appears Plaintiff has intentionally ignored the Court’s orders and her discovery obligations. Under the circumstances, the Court finds that a terminating sanction is warranted.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2021-00300268-CU-PO-GDS: Kailie Armstrong vs. Lotus Investment Partners LLC 06/18/2025 Hearing on Motion for Terminating Sanctions in Department 54

Defendant’s motion for terminating sanctions is GRANTED. Defendant shall submit a formal order and judgment of dismissal for the Court's signature pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312.