Judge: Brian F. Gasdia, Case: 22NWCV00854, Date: 2025-06-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22NWCV00854    Hearing Date: June 4, 2025    Dept: R

#12

ROJAS v. FCA US LLC

CASE NO.:  22NWCV00854

HEARING:  Wednesday, June 4, 2025 at 10:30 a.m.

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Monetary Sanctions is GRANTED. Plaintiffs’ Motion for Issue Sanctions is DENIED.

Moving Party to give notice.

No Opposition filed as of June 2, 2025. Due May 27, 2025. (CCP §1005(b).)

The Court notes that a Notice of Reassignment was filed in this case on May 2, 2025 which states that on June 2, 2025, this action was reassigned to Judge Brian F. Gasdia as an individual, direct calendaring judge for all purposes, including trial, in Dept. R.

This lemon law action was filed by Plaintiffs LUIS ACEVEDO ROJAS and AQUETZALI ACEVEDO SANCHEZ (collectively “Plaintiffs”) against Defendants PREMIER AUTOMOTIVE OF PLACENTIA, LLC; FCA US LLC (“FCA”) and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive on September 20, 2022.

Plaintiffs now move for an order granting issue and monetary sanctions against Defendant FCA and its attorneys of record for failure to comply with the Court’s March 27, 2024 Order granting Plaintiffs’ Motions to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents (set one) and Special Interrogatories (set one).

This Motion is unopposed.

CCP §2023.010 includes: “(d) Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery.” CCP §2023.030 provides, in part: “To the extent authorized by this chapter governing any particular discovery method or any other provision of this title, the court, after notice to any affected party, may impose [sanctions] against anyone engaging in conduct that is a misuse of the discovery process[,]” which includes monetary and issue and terminating sanctions. (CCP §2023.030.) Failing to respond to an authorized method of discovery and disobeying a court order to provide discovery are both misuses of the discovery process. (CCP §§2023.010 (d) and (g).)

It is a commonly stated axiom that discovery sanctions “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.” (Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 793.) However, a court is empowered to apply the ultimate sanction against a litigant who persists in the outright refusal to comply with discovery obligations. The refusal to reveal material evidence is deemed to be an admission that the claim or defense is without merit. (Id. at 794-795.)

Issue Sanctions

CRC Rule 3.1345(a)(7) requires a motion for issue or evidentiary sanctions to be accompanied by a separate statement in accordance with CRC Rule 3.1345(c). Plaintiffs’ Motion/Request for Issue Sanctions fails to comply with the CRC because no separate statement has been submitted. On this basis, the request for issue sanctions is procedurally defective and DENIED.

Monetary Sanctions

The Court finds that monetary sanctions are reasonable, and warranted, here. The information sought by Plaintiffs is important and relevant to this case. It is undisputed that FCA has not complied with the Court’s March 27, 2024 Order, and, as indicated above, has failed/refused to oppose this Motion.

Monetary sanctions are GRANTED under CCP §2023.010(d) and (g) in the amount requested of $2,000.00—payable by Defendant FCA and FCA’s Counsel of Record, Ongaro PC, to Plaintiffs and their counsel of record within 90 days from the date of the Court’s issuance of this Order.