Judge: Anne Richardson, Case: 21STCV13188, Date: 2023-03-22 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV13188 Hearing Date: March 22, 2023 Dept: 40
|
MARICRUZ SANTIAGO, Plaintiff, v. SUBARU OF AMERICA, INC.; SUBARU OF GLENDALE; and DOES 1 through
10, inclusive, Defendants. |
Case No.: 21STCV13188 Hearing Date: 3/22/23 Trial Date: 6/20/23 [TENTATIVE] RULING RE: Plaintiff Maricruz
Santiago’s Motions to: Compel Responses
to Form and Special Interrogatories (Set One); Compel Responses
to Requests for Production (Set One); and Deem Requests for
Admission (Set One) Admitted. |
On April 7, 2021, Plaintiff Maricruz Santiago brought this
action against Defendants Subaru of America, Inc, Subaru of Glendale, and Does
1 through 10 pursuant to (1)-(5) five Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act claims
(“SBA”; lemon law) and (6) one Fraud claim, as based on allegations that, in
December 2014, Plaintiff purchased a 2015 Subaru Forester from Subaru of
Glendale, pursuant to express and implied warranties from Subaru of America,
only for the vehicle to develop defects related to, inter alia, the
continuously variable transmission (“CVT”), the transmission, a performance
recall, the illumination of the ABS light, and the VDC light, and/or hill
assist light.
On August 20, 2021, Plaintiff Santiago served on Subaru of
America (1) Form and Special Interrogatories (Set One), (2) Requests for
Production (Set One), and (3) Request for Admissions (Set One). (8/29/22 Mots.,
p 2:2-6.)
On August 19, 2022, due to a complete nonresponse to these
requests from Subaru of America, Plaintiff Maricruz Santiago made Motions to (1)
Compel Responses to Form and Special Interrogatories (Set One), (2) Compel
Responses to Requests for Production (Set One), and (3) Deem Requests for
Admission (Set One) Admitted. (See 8/29/22 Mots.) The compel interrogatories
and request for production motions request an order directing Subaru of America
to pay Plaintiff Santiago $500 for each day that Subaru of America continues to
fail to respond to the August 20, 2021 interrogatories and production requests,
beginning on the day this Court issues an order granting Santiago’s compel
motions. (8/29/22 Mots., pp. 8-9 or 9-10.) The admit requests for admission
motion does not request like sanctions. (See 8/29/22 Mot.)
On December 20, 2022, Subaru of America provided to
Plaintiff Santiago what it represented as substantially compliant responses to the
August 20, 2021 discovery requests. (See 12/20/22 & 3/9/23 Mots., Exs. B, C
[in each respective motion, showing copies of responses to interrogatories, admission,
and production requests].)
The record fails to reflect that Plaintiff Santiago
requested further discovery as to Subaru of America’s late discovery responses.
On December 20, 2022, Subaru of America also made motions
for relief from waiver related to its nonresponse to Plaintiff Santiago’s Form
and Special Interrogatories (Set One) and Requests for Admission (Set One).
(See 12/20/22 & 3/9/23 Mots, Exs. B, C [copies of responses].)
On March 9, 2023, Subaru of America made a motion for relief
from waiver related to its nonresponse to Plaintiff Santiago’s Requests for
Production (Set One). (See 3/9/23 Mot., Ex. B [copy of response].)
The Court rules that the August 19, 2022 motions (x3) filed
by Plaintiff Santiago are MOOT because the Court’s review of the December 20,
2022 responses to Plaintiff Santiago’s August 20, 2021 discovery requests show
substantially compliant responses satisfying Subaru of America’s discovery
obligations to Plaintiff Santiago. (See 12/20/22 & 3/9/23 Mots, Exs. B, C
[copies of responses].)
In lieu of the sanctions requested by Plaintiff Santiago, relating
to a certain amount per day, the Court instead AWARDS $3,000 in monetary
sanctions against Subaru of America for its failure to respond to Plaintiff
Santiago’s August 20, 2021 discovery requests, $1,000 per each motion.
Plaintiff Subaru of America is ORDERED TO REMIT PAYMENT of
these sanctions WITHIN 30 DAYS of this order.