Gonzalez v. EBS Foods, LLC

Arbitrator. Arbitrator's Reliance on Evidence Not Formally Admitted For the first time in supplemental briefing, Petitioner advances an alternative ground for vacatur under section 1286.2(a)(4): that to the extent the Arbitrator drew on material contained in the arbitration file but never admitted at the evidentiary hearing, she decided the case on evidence outside the record the parties' agreement defined and thereby exceeded her powers. The argument rests on the arbitration agreement's provision that "[t]he California Code of Evidence shall apply to testimony and documents submitted to the arbitrator," and on In re Marriage of Pasco (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 585, Acqua Vista Homeowners Assn. v. MWI, Inc. (2017) 7 Cal.App.5th 1129, and Pacific Crown Distributors v. Brotherhood of Teamsters (1986) 183 Cal.App.3d 1138. (Suppl. Brief, pp. 8-9.)

The Court declines to reach it. The Court's June 16, 2026 order continued the hearing and directed supplemental briefing on two discrete questions: what deposition evidence was before the Arbitrator by way of the November 2023 summary adjudication briefing, and which party was responsible for providing the missing deposition transcripts in the event the doctrine of invited error applied. The order granted no leave to supplement the grounds for vacatur, and the Court did not invite briefing on any new theory of excess of powers.

Supplemental briefing ordered for a defined purpose is limited to that purpose. The supplemental papers have answered the questions the Court posed. The summary adjudication record did not contain all of the designated testimony, and responsibility for lodging the transcripts rested jointly on both parties as to the health plan witnesses and on Petitioner alone as to Matthews. Neither answer supplies what section 1286.2 requires. The Arbitrator ordered the transcripts produced, and counsel did not produce them.

That remains a failure of the parties, not conduct of the Arbitrator. In any event, the Petition fails for the reasons stated in the Discussion above - namely that the Arbitrator had evidence before her supporting the finding Petititioner contests. The Court cannot revisit an Arbitrator's findings.

Respondents' Late Opposition The law makes clear that the court may and should consider a late-filed response without deeming any allegations in the Petition admitted because Respondent mistakenly treated the petition as a motion and filed the Opposition on the date an opposition to a motion would be due. Ruiz v. Moss Bros. Auto Group, Inc. (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 836.

Conclusion

The Petition to Vacate the Arbitration Award is DENIED. The Request for Sanctions is DENIED. Moving party to give notice. Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCDept224@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative, and copying all parties in the email communication. Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter. Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue. If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court will adopt the tentative as the final order, or take the matter off calendar at its discretion.

Case Number: 25STCV06016 Hearing Date: August 24, 2026 Dept: 224 Gonzalez v. EBS Foods, LLC TENTATIVE RULING Motion to Compel Plaintiff's Initial Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One (CRS #6318), is DENIED as MOOT. Motion to Compel Plaintiff's Initial Responses to Form Interrogatories - Employment, Set One (CRS #0139), is DENIED as MOOT. Motion to Compel Plaintiff's Initial Responses to Special Interrogatories - Employment, Set One (CRS #0139), is DENIED as MOOT.

Defendant's Motion to Deem Requests for Admissions (CRS #2338) filed by Defendant EBS Foods, LLC is DENIED as MOOT. The requests for Sanctions are DENIED for lack of proper notice.

ANALYSIS Introduction Plaintiff failed to serve responses to this discovery until August 2026. The parties agree that the request for a court order compelling responses to these three sets of discovery, are moot. Only sanctions remain at issue.

Legal Standard

California Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 2023.040, specifies the procedural requirements for requests for discovery sanctions under the Civil Discovery Act, including notice requirements and supporting documentation. The statute provides: "A request for a sanction shall, in the notice of motion, identify every person, party, and attorney against whom the sanction is sought, and specify the type of sanction sought. The notice of motion shall be supported by a memorandum of points and authorities, and accompanied by a declaration setting forth facts supporting the amount of any monetary sanction sought."

The statute's use of the mandatory word "shall" and the specific phrase "in the notice of motion" leaves no ambiguity: the identification of the sanctioned parties and the type of sanction must appear in the notice of motion itself. This requirement is not satisfied by including the sanctions request only in the memorandum of points and authorities, a supporting declaration, or elsewhere in the motion papers. California courts have strictly enforced the notice-of-motion requirement, treating deficient notices as grounds for reversing or voiding sanctions orders. (See Sole Energy Co. v.

Hodges, (2005) 128 Cal. App. 4th 199 [holding that a terminating sanction was void for failure to provide adequate notice]; In re Marriage of Fuller, (1985) 163 Cal. App. 3d 1070 (the Court of Appeal issued a writ of mandate after sanctions were imposed against an attorney who had no notice that sanctions would be sought against him individually.)

Here, Defendant's Notices filed in support of the motions do not indicate who the sanctions are sought against.The Code directs that this information "shall" be included in the Notice. While the Court agrees with Defendant that Plaintiff's dilatory conduct is unreasonable, and her failure to comply with basic discovery obligations for nearly one year is sanctionable, the Court must follow the letter of the law requiring proper notice. Discovery sanctions must be DENIED for lack of proper notice. The Notices fail to specify either the type of sanction, or against whom they are sought.

Conclusion

Motion to Compel Plaintiff's Initial Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One (CRS #6318), is DENIED as MOOT. Motion to Compel Plaintiff's Initial Responses to Form Interrogatories - Employment, Set One (CRS #0139), is DENIED as MOOT. Motion to Compel Plaintiff's Initial Responses to Special Interrogatories - Employment, Set One (CRS #0139), is DENIED as MOOT. Defendant's Motion to Deem Requests for Admissions (CRS #2338) filed by Defendant EBS Foods, LLC is DENIED as MOOT. The requests for Sanctions are DENIED for lack of proper notice. Plaintiff to give notice and proof of service of notice.