Angela Ramirez vs. Pacific Gas & Electric Company

34-2019-00255681-CU-OE-GDS: Angela Ramirez vs. Pacific Gas & Electric Company 08/11/2026 Hearing on Motion for Terminating Sanctions 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 Department 16D Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-3056 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 on the Court Reporter Services webpage available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://saccourt.ca.gov/general-information/court-reporter-services-transcripts. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://saccourt.ca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/227/639084034465370000.

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.

34-2019-00255681-CU-OE-GDS: Angela Ramirez vs. Pacific Gas & Electric Company 08/11/2026 Hearing on Motion for Terminating Sanctions in Department 16D

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

Tentative Ruling:

Defendant Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s (“Defendant”) motion for terminating sanctions, or in the alternative issue or evidentiary sanctions, and for monetary sanctions is UNOPPOSED and ruled upon as follows.

The notice of motion does not provide notice of the Court's tentative ruling system as required by Local Rule 1.06. Instead, the notice incorrectly refers to Local Rule 1.05 which by its own terms pertains only to those matters that are heard by the Presiding Judge in Department 47 (now designated as Department 17A), while Local Rule 1.06 specifically pertains only to those matters that are heard in this Court's various law & motion departments. These two Local Rules are different, and the specific procedures under them are different, and the specific language required by them are also different. Moving counsel is directed to review the Local Court Rules, effective 1/1/2026.

Moving counsel is also directed to contact opposing counsel and advise him/her of Local Rule 1.06 and the Court's tentative ruling procedure under Local Rule 1.06 and the manner to request a hearing under Local Rule 1.06. If moving counsel is unable to contact opposing counsel prior to hearing, moving counsel is ordered to appear at the hearing.

Factual Background

This action, arising out of Plaintiff Angela Ramirez’s (“Plaintiff”) employment with Defendant, alleges violations of the California Labor Code and Government Code.

On October 10, 2023, this Court granted Defendant's five unopposed motions to compel Plaintiff’s further responses to five separate sets of written discovery. Plaintiff was ordered to serve further responses to the subject discovery no later than October 24, 2023. The Court also sanctioned Plaintiff’s counsel a total of $4,500 ($900 for each motion), for failing to meet and confer pursuant to CCP § 2023.020.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2019-00255681-CU-OE-GDS: Angela Ramirez vs. Pacific Gas & Electric Company 08/11/2026 Hearing on Motion for Terminating Sanctions in Department 16D

After Plaintiff failed to serve the Court ordered discovery responses, Defendant filed its first motion for terminating sanctions, or in the alternative, evidence or issue sanctions, and monetary sanctions. Plaintiff did not oppose that motion. On February 8, 2024, this Court granted the motion to the extent that it granted Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions in the amount of $2,375. The Court found that more severe sanctions were not yet appropriate and thus denied Defendant’s request for the same. The Court again ordered Plaintiff to comply with the October 10, 2023, orders and to serve the Court ordered discovery responses no later than February 29, 2024. The Court also stated that “[s]hould plaintiff fail to do so, nothing shall prevent Defendant from filing a future motion for sanctions.” (February 8, 2024 Minute Order.)

After Plaintiff once again failed to serve the court ordered discovery responses, Defendant filed its second motion for terminating sanctions, or in the alternative, evidence or issue sanctions, and monetary sanctions. As with the previous motion for terminating sanctions, Plaintiff also did not oppose the second motion. On June 27, 2024, this Court (Judge Galvin) granted the motion to the extent that it granted Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions in the amount of $2,850. The Court denied Defendant’s request for more severe sanctions, finding that these sanctions were not yet appropriate. The Court’s June 27, 2024 Order not only ordered Plaintiff to comply with the with the October 10, 2023 orders by serving the subject responses no later than July 12, 2024, but also warned Plaintiff that her:

continued failure to comply with this order may result in the imposition of more severe sanctions, including terminating sanctions. To be clear, having given Plaintiff multiple orders to provide discovery, the Court’s patience has worn thin. Plaintiff must comply with the Court’s orders if she wishes to continue to prosecute her case and should not expect any additional grace period.

(June 27, 2024 Minute Order [emphasis in original].)

Defendant’s counsel represents that, as of the filing of this motion, Plaintiff still has not served the Court-ordered discovery responses that were the subject of the two previous terminating sanction motions, nor has Plaintiff paid the sanctions ordered by the Court on February 8, 2024 and June 27, 2024. (Declaration of Damon M. Ott, ¶ 15.)

On June 11, 2026 this Court granted Defendant’s unopposed motion to compel Plaintiff’s responses to supplemental interrogatory to the extent that it granted Defendant’s request for an order compelling Plaintiff to serve verified responses, without

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2019-00255681-CU-OE-GDS: Angela Ramirez vs. Pacific Gas & Electric Company 08/11/2026 Hearing on Motion for Terminating Sanctions in Department 16D

objections. The Court denied Defendant’s additional request for terminating, issue, evidentiary, and/or monetary sanctions. In making its request for sanctions, Defendant indicated that Plaintiff had still failed to comply with the October 10, 2023 Court order. The Court declined to impose terminating sanctions as the primary request of the subject motion is an order for Plaintiff to respond to supplemental interrogatory. The Court indicated that Defendant is free to seek terminating sanctions in a separate motion in the event that Plaintiff continues to comply with the Court’s order.

Defendant now moves “for an order granting terminating sanctions, or in the alternative issue or evidentiary sanctions, against Plaintiff.” (Notice of Motion at 2:5-6.) Defendant “bases this Motion on the grounds that Plaintiff has abused the discovery process for years. Specifically, Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court’s orders from October 10, 2023, February 8, 2024, June 27, 2024, and June 11, 2026. Plaintiff’s failure to comply with this Court’s orders and failure to produce responsive information and documents pursuant to authorized discovery methods has prejudiced Defendant and its ability to prepare for trial.” (Id., at 2:12-16.) In its moving declaration, Defendant’s counsel represents that:

24. On June 25, 2026, Plaintiff’s Counsel served “responses” to Defendant’s Request for Supplemental Responses to Request for Production of Documents (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set Two), Request for Production of Documents (Set Two) and Special Interrogatories (Set Three). Plaintiff’s Counsel failed to serve responses to Defendant’s Request for Supplemental Responses to Interrogatories (Set One), in violation of the Court’s orders from June 11, 2026 (sixth violation of this Court’s orders).

Plaintiff’s responses also contain objections to the requests and interrogatories at hand (seventh violation of this Court’s orders). Plaintiff also has not provided documents responsive to the subject discovery or conducted a diligent search and reasonable inquiry for responsive documents in Plaintiff’s custody, possession, and control (eighth violation of this Court’s orders). Plaintiff’s verification for her responses to Defendant’s Request for Supplemental Responses to Request for Production of Documents (Set One) is missing Plaintiff’s signature. (ninth violation of court orders)[.]

Instead of her signature, a date stands in its place. My office emailed Plaintiff’s Counsel on June 30, 2026, to alert Plaintiff to this error and requested that a revised verification be provided by July 2, 2026. That date has passed and Plaintiff has not provided a revised verification. My office also asked that Plaintiff’s Counsel provide the audit trail for Plaintiff’s electronic signatures to authenticate her electronic signature affixed to her

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2019-00255681-CU-OE-GDS: Angela Ramirez vs. Pacific Gas & Electric Company 08/11/2026 Hearing on Motion for Terminating Sanctions in Department 16D

verifications to all of her discovery responses ever served in this case by the same date, but Plaintiff never did so. (Attached hereto as Exhibit O, are true and correct copies of the Plaintiff’s responses to Defendant’s Request for Supplemental Responses to Request for Production of Documents (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set Two), Request for Production of Documents (Set Two), and Special Interrogatories (Set Three); Attached hereto as Exhibit P, is a true and correct copy of Defendant’s Counsel’s correspondence to Plaintiff’s Counsel to try to obtain verified responses.)

(Damon Decl., at ¶ 24.)

Defendant’s counsel also declares that

27. As of the filing of this Declaration in Support of Defendant’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions, or in the alternative, Issue or Evidentiary Sanctions, Plaintiff has not provided: any responses whatsoever as ordered by the Court on October 10, 2023, February 8, 2024, and June 27, 2024 (i.e., further responses to Defendant’s Form Interrogatories – General (Set One), Form Interrogatories – Employment (Set One), Special Interrogatories (Set One), Requests for Admission (Set One), and Request for Production of Documents (Set One)) [sic]; any responses to Defendant’s Request for Supplemental Responses to Interrogatories (Set One); any documents in response to Defendant’s Supplemental Responses to Request for Production of Documents (Set One) and Request for Production of Documents (Set Two); a verified response to Defendant’s Supplemental Responses to Request for Production of Documents (Set One) or; monetary sanctions as ordered by the Court on February 8, 2024, and June 27, 2024.

(Damon Decl., at ¶ 25.)

Once again, with all the underlying motions, the instant motion is unopposed.

For misuse of the discovery process, including as is the case here, disobeying a court order 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. Code of Civ. Proc. §§ 2023.010 subd. (d) and (g), 2023.030 subd. (d)(1) and (3).) The Court has broad discretion in selecting the

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2019-00255681-CU-OE-GDS: Angela Ramirez vs. Pacific Gas & Electric Company 08/11/2026 Hearing on Motion for Terminating Sanctions in Department 16D

appropriate sanctions under the factual circumstances before it. (Cedars-Sinai Medical Center v. Superior Court (1998) 18 Cal.4th 1, 12.)

Plaintiff’s multiple failures to comply with the Court’s orders constitute a misuse of the discovery process warranting terminating sanctions. The Court has given Plaintiff multiple opportunities to provide the Court ordered responses. The Court has also warned that a failure to comply could result in serious sanctions, including terminating sanctions. Further, as with the previous motions, Plaintiff failed to oppose the instant motion. The Court construes Defendant’s failure to oppose the motion as a concession on the merits.[1] (D.I. Chadbourne, Inc. v. Superior Court (1964) 60 Cal.2d 723, 728, fn. 4 [where nonmoving party fails to oppose a ground for a motion “it is assumed that [nonmoving party] concedes” that ground].) Terminating sanctions are appropriate. Plaintiff has essentially abandoned the action.

Defendant’s request for terminating sanctions is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s Complaint is ordered dismissed.

As the Court has granted Defendant’s request for terminating sanctions, Defendant’s alternative request for issue and evidentiary sanction is denied as is Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions.

In light of the Court granting Defendant’s motion, the Court declines to impose additional monetary sanctions. Therefore, Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions is denied.

Defendant shall submit a proposed judgment of dismissal pursuant to CRC 3.1312.

[1] The Court references its Ruling on Submitted Matter issued July 15, 2026. Among other findings made therein, the Court indicated that given Plaintiff’s counsel’s ineligibility to practice law as of July 1, 2026, Defendant had given notice and filed on July 14, 2026, its “Notice to Plaintiff to Appoint Another Attorney or Appear In Propria Persona Per CCP Sec. 286.” As of the preparation of this order, the Court has still received no filings from Plaintiff effectuating a substitution of counsel or any other information from Plaintiff or her counsel.

Plaintiff has neither appeared in pro per nor through new counsel, nor has Plaintiff provided any indication that the ineligible status of her present counsel has been cured. Nor has Plaintiff properly sought, much less establish good cause for, leave to continue this hearing and to file any late opposition to this motion. Additionally, trial of this matter otherwise remains set for September 18, 2026, effectively leaving no reasonable time for postponing the Court’s ruling on this motion or other remedy that would not substantially and unduly prejudice Defendant.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2019-00255681-CU-OE-GDS: Angela Ramirez vs. Pacific Gas & Electric Company 08/11/2026 Hearing on Motion for Terminating Sanctions in Department 16D