Judge: Anne Richardson, Case: 21STCV15581, Date: 2023-05-03 Tentative Ruling
DEPARTMENT 40 - JUDGE ANNE RICHARDSON - LAW AND MOTION RULINGS
The Court issues tentative rulings on certain motions. The tentative ruling will not become the
final ruling until the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(a)(2)]. If the parties wish to
submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance, all counsel must
agree and choose which counsel will give notice. That counsel must 1) call
Dept 40 by 8:30 a.m. on the day of the hearing (213/633-0160) and state
that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling, and 2) serve notice of
the ruling on all parties. If any party declines to submit on the tentative
ruling, then no telephone call is necessary and all parties should appear at
the hearing in person or by Court Call.
Case Number: 21STCV15581 Hearing Date: May 3, 2023 Dept: 40
|
KAREN LYNETTE JOHNSON, an individual, Plaintiff, v. KIA MOTORS
AMERICA, INC., KIA DOWNTOWN LOS ANGELES. INC and DOES 1 through 20, Defendants. |
Case No.: 21STCV15581 Hearing Date: 5/3/23 Trial Date: 6/27/23 [TENTATIVE] RULING RE: Defendant Kia
America, Inc.’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories
Set No. One. |
Plaintiff Karen Lynette Johnson
sues Defendants Kia America, Inc. [sued
as Kia Motors America, Inc.] (hereafter Kia America), Kia Downtown Los Angeles,
and Does 1 through 20 pursuant to a July 7, 2021 First Amended Complaint (FAC)
alleging two lemon law claims and one tort claim: (1) Breach of Express
Warranty; (2) Breach of Implied Warranty; and (3) Negligence.
The claims arise from allegations that on or around November 10, 2020,
pursuant to a written agreement, Plaintiff leased a 2021 Kia Telluride
(Vehicle) from Kia Downtown Los Angeles, in connection with which, Plaintiff
received an express written warranty from Kia America to preserve or maintain
the utility or performance of the Vehicle or to provide compensation if there was
a failure in utility or performance for a specified period. Plaintiff alleges that,
during the warranty period, the Vehicle contained or developed defects,
including defects related to the Vehicle’s electrical group, wiring harness,
strut, bearing and mount defects, and any and all other defects referenced in
the repair orders for the Vehicle, with Kia America and its representatives in California
unable to service or repair the Vehicle to conform to the applicable express
warranties after a reasonable number of opportunities.
On June 6, 2022, Kia America propounded written discovery requests from
Plaintiff Johnson, including a Special Interrogatories Set No. One.
On September 26, 2022, Plaintiff Johnson responded to the discovery
requests.
On October 14, 2022, Kia America sent a meet-and-confer letter to
Plaintiff outlining perceived deficiencies in Plaintiff’s discovery responses.
Plaintiff did not respond to this letter.
On November 17, 2022, Kia America sent another meet-and-confer letter to
Plaintiff regarding the perceived deficiencies in Plaintiff’s discovery
responses, to which Plaintiff again did not respond.
On November 23, 2022, Kia America filed the instant motion to compel
further responses to Special Interrogatories Set No. One. The motion was
calendared for hearing on February 15, 2023.
On February 17, 2023, Kia America filed an amended notice for the motion
to compel further responses, noting that the hearing on the motion had been
reset to May 3, 2023.
On April 12, 2023, the Court held a status conference regarding
alternative dispute resolution in this action, at which time the parties
represented that they were working on scheduling a date for mediation, for
which they had agreed to split costs. The minutes also reflect that the Court
directed the parties to meet and confer regarding the issues raised in the
motion to compel set for hearing on May 3, 2023.
The motion to compel further interrogatory responses is now before the
Court.
No opposition to this motion has been filed by Plaintiff Johnson.
A motion to compel further
discovery responses must be filed and served within 45 days after the initial
verified response or supplemental verified response was personally served or by
any specific later date that the discovering party agreed to in writing. (Code
Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300, subd. (c), 2031.310, subd. (c), 2033.290, subd. (c) [Sinaiko
Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants, supra,
at p. 403].) Extra time is added to the 45 days if the response was served by a
method other than personal delivery. (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1010.6, subd.
(a)(3)(B), 1013, subds. (c), (e), 2016.050.)
Plaintiff served verified responses
to Special Interrogatories Set No. One
on September 29, 2022. (Mot., Orquiola Decl., Ex. A, Verification.) Service was
effected via electronic mail. (Mot., Orquiola Decl., Ex. A, Proof of Service.)
Kia America made the instant motion to compel further interrogatory
responses on November 23, 2022. (See Mot., 1:1.)
To determine whether the motion is timely, the Court adds 45 days to
September 29, 2022, plus an additional two court days pursuant to Code of Civil
Procedure section 1010.6, subdivision (a)(3)(B)—extra days for service via
electronic means.
Forty-five days after September 29, 2022 was Sunday, November 13, 2022,
pushing the 45-day window to Monday, November 14, 2022. (See Cal. Rules of
Court, rule 1.10, subd. (b) [“Unless otherwise provided by law, if the last day
for the performance of any act that is required by these rules to be performed
within a specific period of time falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or other legal
holiday, the period is extended to and includes the next day that is not a
holiday”].)
An additional two court days for service by electronic means pushed the
final filing date for this motion to Wednesday, November 16, 2022. (See Code
Civ. Proc., subd. (a)(3)(B) [Subject to exceptions not here applicable, “[a]ny
period of notice, or any right or duty to do any act or make any response
within any period or on a date certain after the service of the document, which
time period or date is prescribed by statute or rule of court, shall be
extended after service by electronic means by two court days”].)
However, the instant motion was filed and served on November 23, 2022,
i.e., five court days late/seven calendar days late.
The Court therefore DENIES the instant motion to compel further interrogatory responses as untimely.
Defendant Kia America, Inc.’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories Set No. One is DENIED as untimely.