HIMLEY vs SAMAAN

23CV009868: HIMLEY vs SAMAAN 04/16/2026 Hearing on Motion for Order Reopening Discovery in Department 16D

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE:

Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on this calendar must comply with the following procedure:

To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you 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 and advise opposing counsel. 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.

Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely either telephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with notice to the Court and all other parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure §367.75. Although remote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely for non-evidentiary civil hearings.

The Department 16D Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16146506749 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 4650 6749. To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NO COURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED.

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.

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

23CV009868: HIMLEY vs SAMAAN 04/16/2026 Hearing on Motion for Order Reopening Discovery in Department 16D

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 forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

*** NOTICE: EFFECTIVE APRIL 13, 2026, THIS DEPARTMENT HAS MOVED TO THE TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE COURTHOUSE LOCATED AT 500 G. ST. SACRAMENTO, CA. ALL MOTIONS NOTICED FOR DEPARTMENT 53 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 16D 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. PARTIES MAY CONTINUE TO APPEAR REMOTELY IN DEPARTMENT 16D UNLESS SPECIFICALLY ORDERED OTHERWISE. ***

TENTATIVE RULING: Plaintiff Dirk Himley’s unopposed motion to reopen discovery is granted.

The Court declines to consider Defendant’s untimely opposition filed and served on April 9, 2026, a mere five Court days before the hearing. Defendant’s opposition was filed in violation of Code of Civil Procedure section 1005(b) which requires an opposition to be filed “at least nine court days . . . before the hearing.”

In this action, Plaintiff alleges a cause of action against Defendant Nabil Samaan for breach of contract. Plaintiff alleges Defendant agreed to sell Plaintiff real property located at 4021 New York Avenue in Fair Oaks, California, for $380,000; that Plaintiff delivered $60,100 to Defendant; and then Defendant cancelled the agreement and raised the purchase price to $425,000. Plaintiff alleges he is owed his $60,100 plus 5% interest.

The case was initially set for trial on October 21, 2025. Trial was continued to January 20, 2026, to allow Plaintiff to retain counsel which he did on January 2, 2026. On January 20, 2026, Plaintiff’s motion to continue trial was granted and trial was continued to November 2, 2026. The Court notes that Defendant appealed that order and the Third District Court of Appeal’s docket indicates that it is considering dismissing the appeal on the basis that it is a nonappealable order. It appears that Defendant also filed a writ of mandate challenging the January 20, 2026 order.

Plaintiff now seeks an order reopening discovery for himself only. Plaintiff indicates that he did not propound any discovery prior to retaining counsel as he was not familiar with litigation. By contrast, Defendant served almost 300 discovery requests on Plaintiff.

For good cause, the Court may grant leave to complete discovery proceedings, or to have a

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV009868: HIMLEY vs SAMAAN 04/16/2026 Hearing on Motion for Order Reopening Discovery in Department 16D

motion concerning discovery heard, closer to the initial trial date, or to reopen discovery after a new trial date has been set. (CCP § 2024.050(a).) In making such a finding, the Court considers the necessity and reasons for the discovery, the diligence of the party seeking the discovery, the likelihood that allowing the discovery will prevent the case from going to trial, the length of time between the previous trial date and the date presently set. (CCP § 2024.050(b).)

No timely opposition to the motion was filed. 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.)

The motion is granted and discovery is reopened to allow Plaintiff to conduct discovery. However, despite this motion being Plaintiff’s request, the Court, in its discretion, reopens discovery upon the condition that discovery is also reopened for Defendant given that the Court is also concurrently granting Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a second amended complaint which includes new causes of action. All discovery deadlines will be calculated based on the November 2, 2026 trial date.

The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312 or other notice is required.