NGUYEN vs NGUYEN BINH KHIEM, LLC, et al.

24CV015755: NGUYEN vs NGUYEN BINH KHIEM, LLC, et al. 07/22/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other for Discovery Sanctions for Failure to Comply with Court Order in Department 8D

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 8D Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-7719 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 8D Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16113421868 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 1342 1868. 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.

24CV015755: NGUYEN vs NGUYEN BINH KHIEM, LLC, et al. 07/22/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other for Discovery Sanctions for Failure to Comply with Court Order in Department 8D

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.

*** EFFECTIVE APRIL 13, 2026, THIS DEPARTMENT HAS MOVED TO THE TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE COURTHOUSE LOCATED AT 500 G STREET IN SACRAMENTO, CA 95814. ALL HEARINGS NOTICED FOR DEPARTMENT 25 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 8D OF THE NEW COURTHOUSE. ***

The notice of motion does not provide notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system, as required by Local Rule 1.06(D). Moving counsel is directed to contact opposing party in pro per forthwith to advise of Local Rule 1.06, the Court’s tentative ruling procedure, and the manner to request a hearing. If moving counsel is unable to contact opposing party prior to the hearing, moving counsel shall be available at the hearing, in person or remotely, in the event opposing party appears without following the procedures set forth in Local Rule 1.06(B).

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant Tam Nguyen’s (“Plaintiff”) motion for monetary sanctions and for compliance with this Court’s orders is UNOPPOSED and GRANTED in part as follows.

This action arises out of Plaintiff’s sale of a business. In the operative Third Amended Complaint, filed on September 10, 2025, Plaintiff alleges that the “Buyer Parties” never paid the agreed-upon purchase price in accordance with the terms of the agreement and asserts claims against Defendants Nguyen Binh Khiem, LLC, Billy Nguyen aka Khiem Binh Nguyen (“Billy Nguyen”), Thu Ha Thi Nguyen, Kim Thi Nguyen, Chinatown LLC, and Thai Du. On September 11, 2025, Defendants Nguyen Binh Khiem, LLC and Billy Nguyen filed a Cross-Complaint against Plaintiff.

On October 28, 2025, Plaintiff served a request for production of documents, set one, and special interrogatories, set one, on Billy Nguyen. (Duyen Nguyen Decl., ¶ 2.) On

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV015755: NGUYEN vs NGUYEN BINH KHIEM, LLC, et al. 07/22/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other for Discovery Sanctions for Failure to Comply with Court Order in Department 8D

March 4, 2026, this Court ordered Billy Nguyen to provide verified responses to both discovery requests, without objections, no later than March 18, 2026. (Id., ¶ 4.) Plaintiff’s counsel sent two letters to Billy Nguyen advising him of his obligation to respond. (Id., ¶¶ 5, 6.) As of April 1, 2026, Billy Nguyen had not served any verified discovery responses. (Id., ¶ 7.)

Plaintiff now requests an order (1) requiring Billy Nguyen to serve verified, codecompliant responses, without objections to Plaintiff’s discovery requests within 10 days of service of the Court’s order; (2) requiring Billy Nguyen to produce all responsive documents; and (3) for $9,000 in monetary sanctions.

No opposition was filed to this motion. 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. Super. Ct. (1964) 60 Cal.2d 723, 728, fn. 4.)

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel compliance with the Court’s March 4, 2026 Orders for verified responses, without objections, to request for production of documents, set one, and special interrogatories, set one, is GRANTED.

Plaintiff’s request to compel Billy Nguyen to produce all documents responsive to Plaintiff’s request for production of documents, set one, is DENIED as premature. A party may move for an order compelling production of documents only after a party has initially responded to a demand for production. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.320, subd. (a).)

Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions is GRANTED in part. The Court finds Billy Nguyen’s unexplained failure to comply with the Court’s March 4, 2026 orders to be a misuse of the discovery process. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subd. (g).)

For misuse of the discovery process, including disobeying a court order to provide discovery, the Court may impose issue, evidence, terminating, or monetary sanctions. (Code Civ. Proc., §2023.030, subds. (a)–(d).) A court has broad discretion in the selection of the appropriate sanction for the factual circumstances. (Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 967, 991–992.) 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.” (Id. at p. 992.) Sanctions are generally imposed in an incremental approach starting with monetary sanctions. (Lopez v. Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of N.Y., Inc. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 566, 604.)

The Court finds that monetary sanctions are appropriate here. Monetary sanctions in

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV015755: NGUYEN vs NGUYEN BINH KHIEM, LLC, et al. 07/22/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other for Discovery Sanctions for Failure to Comply with Court Order in Department 8D

discovery are for the purpose of making an injured party whole and are limited to “reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by anyone as a result of” misuse of discovery process. (Cornerstone Realty Advisors, LLC v. Summit Healthcare REIT, Inc. (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 771, 790)

Plaintiff’s counsel declares that he requested $6,000 in monetary sanctions in connection with the prior motions and spent approximately 6.0 hours preparing the instant motion, at a rate of $500 per hour. (Duyen Nguyen Decl., ¶¶ 8–10.) Plaintiff therefore requests a total $9,000 in monetary sanctions. The Court denied sanctions related to its prior motions and will not revisit them here. However, the Court finds that $3,000 is a reasonable amount to make Plaintiff whole for the misuse of discovery.

Accordingly, the Court orders that Billy Nguyen is liable for and shall pay to Plaintiff a monetary sanction in the amount of $3,000.[1]

Disposition

Plaintiff’s motion to compel a response is GRANTED. Billy Nguyen shall serve verified, code-compliant responses, without objections, to Plaintiff’s request for production of documents, set one, and special interrogatories, set one, no later than August 5, 2026.

Billy Nguyen’s failure to comply with this Order may lead to an inference that he has abandoned the action and may result in the imposition of serious sanctions, including terminating sanctions.

Plaintiff’s request to compel Billy Nguyen to produce all documents responsive to Plaintiff’s request for production of documents, set one, is DENIED.

Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions is GRANTED in part. The Court orders that Billy Nguyen is liable for and shall pay to Plaintiff a monetary sanction in the amount of $3,000. The monetary sanction shall be paid no later than August 19, 2026.

If the sanction is not paid by that date, Plaintiff may prepare for the Court's signature a formal order granting sanctions, which may itself be enforced in the same manner and with the same force and effect as a money judgment. (Newland v. Super. Ct. (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 608, 615 ['[M]onetary sanction orders are enforceable through the execution of judgment laws.'].)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV015755: NGUYEN vs NGUYEN BINH KHIEM, LLC, et al. 07/22/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other for Discovery Sanctions for Failure to Comply with Court Order in Department 8D

Plaintiff shall provide notice of this ruling and file proof of service of this order by no later than July 24, 2026.

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.)

[1] Billy Nguyen has been unrepresented by counsel since January 2026, before the

Court’s March 4 orders.