SANDOVAL vs GENERAL MOTORS, LLC., et al.

25CV010716: SANDOVAL vs GENERAL MOTORS, LLC., et al. 08/11/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other for Compliance Pursuant to C.C.P. § 871.26 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.

25CV010716: SANDOVAL vs GENERAL MOTORS, LLC., et al. 08/11/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other for Compliance Pursuant to C.C.P. § 871.26 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 General Motors, LLC's (“Defendant”) motion for an order for compliance requiring Plaintiff Diana Sandoval (“Plaintiff”) to appear for a limited initial deposition pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §871.26(c)(1) and for mandatory monetary sanctions is ruled upon as follows.

Factual Background

This “lemon law” action was commenced by plaintiff on May 1, 2025.

According to the moving papers, Defendant invoked the recently-enacted provisions of Code of Civil Procedure section 871.26 relating to “expedited discovery and resolution procedures” applicable to civil cases filed after January 1, 2025 which seek restitution or replacement of a motor vehicle but despite meet-and-confer efforts, Plaintiff failed to appear to timely appear for limited initial depositions pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 871.26 subdivision (c)(1) within 120 days of Defendant’s responsive pleading filed on August 14, 2025.

Plaintiff opposes, arguing that this motion is “moot” because, on April 27, 2026, Defendant withdrew its Demurrer and filed an answer. (See Opposition at 2:9-20.) Thus, Plaintiff argues, Defendant’s demurrer is no longer the “operative pleading” and rather the deadline for Plaintiff’s deposition should run from the date of the filing of the answer (April 27, 2026). (Ibid.) As a result, Plaintiff contends that the 120-day deposition period does not run until on or about August 25, 2026. (Ibid.)

Plaintiff’s opposition further represents that Plaintiff’s counsel has experienced a goodfaith breakdown in communication with Plaintiff, which has prevented counsel from securing dates for Plaintiff’s deposition. (Id., at 2:21-27). Accordingly, the opposition requests “a brief continuance of the hearing on this Motion to September 11, 2026, to

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV010716: SANDOVAL vs GENERAL MOTORS, LLC., et al. 08/11/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other for Compliance Pursuant to C.C.P. § 871.26 in Department 16D

allow those efforts to succeed, rather than the imposition of sanctions against counsel for circumstances outside of counsel's control.” (Ibid.)

Finally, Plaintiff’s counsel filed a “Supplemental Declaration” on July 24, 2026, in which counsel declares that:

After filing Plaintiff’s Opposition, Plaintiff’s Counsel was able to reestablish contact with the Plaintiff. On July 20, 2026, Plaintiff offered the following dates for Plaintiff’s deposition: July 29, July 30, and July 31, 2026. Plaintiff remains willing and ready to proceed with her deposition on the above offered dates, or any other dates agreeable to Defendant.

(Supplemental Declaration of Tyson Smith at ¶ 3.)

In reply, Defendant acknowledges that the deposition of Plaintiff was completed on July 29, 2026. (Declaration of Sanja Stark ¶ 10.) Nonetheless, Defendant’s counsel states that the fact that the deposition has occurred before the hearing date on this motion “does not change [Defendant’s] position on the issue.” (Ibid.) Defendant further argues that “ because Plaintiff have not shown good cause, the Code requires that the Court issue an award of monetary sanctions against Plaintiff’s counsel for failure to produce Plaintiff for deposition.” (Reply at 4:13-15.)

Discussion

Code of Civil Procedure section 871.26 provides in pertinent part:

(a) This section only applies to a civil action seeking restitution or replacement of a motor vehicle pursuant to Section 871.20.

(b) Within 60 days after the filing of the answer or other responsive pleading, all parties shall, without awaiting a discovery request, provide to all other parties an initial disclosure and documents pursuant to subdivisions (f), (g), and (h).

(c) Within 120 days after the filing of the answer or other responsive pleading, all parties have the right to conduct initial depositions, each not to exceed two hours, of the following deponents:

(1) The plaintiff.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV010716: SANDOVAL vs GENERAL MOTORS, LLC., et al. 08/11/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other for Compliance Pursuant to C.C.P. § 871.26 in Department 16D

(2) The defendant, and if the defendant is not a natural person, the person who is most qualified to testify on the defendant’s behalf. This deposition shall be limited to the topics listed in subdivision (i).

Thus, pursuant to 871.26(c)(1), Defendant entitled to complete an initial deposition not exceeding two hours of Plaintiff. While Plaintiff argues the 120-day deadline runs from the date of the filing of Defendant’s currently operative pleading, here, the answer filed on April 27, 2026, the Court finds this argument unpersuasive. In this regard, the plain language of section 871.26 requires that the deposition take place within 120 days “after the filing of . . . [the] responsive pleading.” As applied here, it is undisputed that Defendant’s demurrer constitutes a “responsive pleading” and that it was filed as of August 14, 2025.

Section 871.26 does not instead require that the deposition take place 120 days after the subsequent filing of what would later become the operative pleading. Indeed, not only is Plaintiff’s interpretation of section 871.26 contradicted by the plain language of the statute, but Plaintiff also provides no legal authority which supports its contention that the 120-day timeline runs from the filing of the currently operative pleading.

Additionally, to the extent that Plaintiff’s counsel’s suggests in its supplemental declaration that this motion has been rendered “moot” by virtue of Plaintiff’s offer of additional dates for her deposition and representation that Plaintiff is willing and ready to proceed with her deposition, Code of Civil Procedure section 1005.5 specifically provides that a motion is deemed made at the time it is filed and served and here, both the opposition and supplemental declaration of counsel concede that no deposition has yet to take place. Consequently, this motion cannot be considered “moot” within the meaning of section 1005.5 and finding no other substantive opposition, the Court will GRANT this motion to compel to the extent it seeks a limited initial deposition of Plaintiff.

However, to the extent Plaintiff has already appeared for a limited initial deposition (as both parties seem to conceded), she need not appear again in order to comply with this ruling.

Code of Civil Procedure section 871.26(j) further provides in pertinent part:

Unless the party failing to comply with this section shows good cause, notwithstanding any other law and in addition to any other sanctions imposed pursuant to this chapter, a court shall impose sanctions as follows:

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV010716: SANDOVAL vs GENERAL MOTORS, LLC., et al. 08/11/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other for Compliance Pursuant to C.C.P. § 871.26 in Department 16D

(1) A one-thousand-five-hundred-dollar ($1,500) sanction against the plaintiff’s attorney or two-thousand-five-hundred-dollar ($2,500) sanction against the defense attorney respectively, paid within 15 business days for failure to comply with the document production requirements as prescribed in subdivision (b).

(2) A one-thousand-five-hundred-dollar ($1,500) sanction against the plaintiff’s attorney or two-thousand-five-hundred-dollar ($2,500) sanction against the defense attorney respectively, paid within 15 business days for failure to comply with the provisions relating to depositions as prescribed in subdivision (c).

(3)

(Underline added for emphasis.)

The original moving papers incorrectly base Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions on the inapplicable provisions of section 871.26 subdivision (j)(1) relating to document production rather than section 871.26 subdivision (j)(2) relating to depositions. Defendant served and filed a “Notice of Errata” indicating that because its motion pertains to depositions, its sanction request is based upon section 871.26 subdivision (j)(2). This “Notice of Errata” was filed and served on June 12, 2026, which was in sufficient time under Code of Civil Procedure section 1005(b) for consideration given the August 11, 2026 hearing date.

As provided in section 871.26 subdivision (c), “[w]ithin 120 days after the filing of the answer or other responsive pleading, all parties have the right to conduct initial depositions” including that of the plaintiff(s). As discussed above, Plaintiff did not comply with this provision, nor does eventually producing Plaintiff for deposition long after the 120-period comply with section 871.26 subdivision (c) otherwise constitute “good cause” to avoid mandatory sanctions. The statute specifically provides the “right to conduct initial depositions” “within 120 days” and not at some later time beyond the 120-day period.

Plaintiff’s opposition here offers no basis which constitutes “good cause” for not appearing for deposition within the 120-day period. Indeed, Plaintiff’s failure to communicate with its own counsel does not constitute good cause for noncompliance with the statute. On this basis, the Court finds that the imposition of monetary sanctions of $1,500 sanction against Plaintiff’s attorney is warranted under the circumstances here. If Plaintiff’s attorney fails to pay this sanction within 30 days or as otherwise agreed by the parties, Defendant may then seek a formal order granting the sanctions,

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV010716: SANDOVAL vs GENERAL MOTORS, LLC., et al. 08/11/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other for Compliance Pursuant to C.C.P. § 871.26 in Department 16D

which order may itself then be enforced in the same manner and with the same force and effect as a money judgment. (Newland v. Superior Court (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 608, 615 [“monetary sanction orders are enforceable through the execution of judgment laws”].)

Disposition

In light of the foregoing, Defendant’s motion to compel the limited initial depositions of Plaintiff’s is GRANTED but, to the extent that Plaintiff has already appeared for her deposition Plaintiff need not appear again in order to comply with this ruling.

Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions of $1,500 is also GRANTED, payable within 30 days (unless the parties agree to a later date memorialized in writing).

Moving defendant to provide notice of this ruling and file proof of service of same within five (5) court days.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc. §1019.5; CRC Rule 3.1312.)