Judge: Joel L. Lofton, Case: 22AHCV00419, Date: 2023-06-20 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22AHCV00419 Hearing Date: June 20, 2023 Dept: X
Tentative Ruling
Judge Joel L. Lofton,
Department X
HEARING DATE: June 20, 2023 TRIAL DATE: February 27, 2024
CASE: RENE GOMEZ
HERNANDEZ v. SIERRA MONROVIA CDJR, LLC, a California limited liability company
dba MONROVIA CHRYSLER DODGE JEEP RAM; FCA US LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive.
CASE NO.: 22AHCV00419
MOTIONS
TO COMPEL FURTHER
MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Rene Gomez Hernandez
RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant
FCA US LLC
SERVICE: Filed April 11, 2023
OPPOSITION: Filed June 6, 2023
REPLY: Filed June 12, 2023
RELIEF
REQUESTED
Plaintiff moves to compel further
responses to special interrogatories and request for production of documents.
Plaintiff also moves for an order compelling compliance.
BACKGROUND
This case arises out of Plaintiff
Rene Gomez Hernandez’s (“Plaintiff”) lemon law claim for a 2020 Jeep Compass,
Vehicle Identification Number 3C4NJDDB8LT116026 (“Subject Vehicle”). Plaintiff
alleges she Plaintiff filed this complaint on June 27, 2022, alleging three
causes of action for (1) violation of Song-Beverly Act – Breach of Express
Warranty, (2) Violation of Song-Beverly Act – Breach of Implied Warranty, and
(3) negligent repair.
TENTATIVE RULING
Plaintiff’s
motions to compel further and motion to compel compliance are denied as moot.
Plaintiff’s requests for sanctions are denied.
LEGAL STANDARD
On receipt of a response to discovery requests, the party requesting may
move for an order compelling further responses for interrogatories (Code Civ.
Proc. 2030.300), requests for admission (Cod. Civ. Proc. section 2033.290), and
requests for production (Code Civ. Proc. section 2031.310).
“[I]f a party then fails to obey an order compelling
inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, the
court may make those orders that are just, including the imposition of an issue
sanction, an evidence sanction, or a terminating sanction under Chapter 7
(commencing with Section 2023.010). In lieu of or
in addition to that sanction, the court may impose a monetary sanction under
Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010).” (Code Civ.
Proc. section 2031.320, subd. (c).)
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff
provides that he served special interrogatories and requests for the production
of documents on Defendant on October 7, 2022. (Lopez Decl. ¶ 3.) Plaintiff provides that Defendant provided deficient
responses on November 14, 2022. (Id. ¶ 4.) Plaintiff also provides that
on November 14, 2022, Defendant agreed to produce documents responses to
several requests. (Ibid.)
Plaintiff provides on January
23, 2023, Defendant served supplemental responses agreeing to produce certain
requested documents. (Lopez ¶ 7.) Plaintiff also provides that on
February 17, 2023, the parties agreed to extend the deadline to file a motion
to compel until two weeks after an informal discovery conference. (Id. ¶ 10.) Plaintiff provides that
Defendant was uncooperative in scheduling the IDC. (Ibid.)
Requests for Production
RFP No. 25: All DOCUMENTS describing
YOUR policies, procedures, and parameters for determining what constitutes a
repair presentation to determine eligibility for a vehicle repurchase pursuant
to the Song-Beverly Act since 2021.
RFP No.
26: All DOCUMENTS describing YOUR policies, procedures, and parameters for
determining what constitutes a “non-conformity” to determine eligibility for a
vehicle repurchase pursuant to the Song-Beverly Act since 2021.
RFP No.
27: All DOCUMENTS describing YOUR policies, procedures, and parameters for
determining what constitutes a “substantial impairment” of a vehicle’s use,
value, or safety to determine eligibility for a vehicle repurchase pursuant to
the Song-Beverly Act since 2021.
RFP No. 28: All DOCUMENTS describing
YOUR policies, procedures, and parameters for defining what constitutes a
“reasonable number of repair attempts” to determine eligibility for a vehicle
repurchase pursuant to the Song-Beverly Act since 2021.
RFP NO.
29: All DOCUMENTS describing YOUR policies, procedures, and parameters for
establishing the turn-around time to respond to a vehicle repurchase request
pursuant to the Song-Beverly Act since 2021.
Special
Interrogatories
Special
Interrogatories No. 19: State YOUR parameters for determining whether a
vehicle as undergone a “reasonable number of repairs attempts” when YOU
evaluate whether a vehicle qualifies for a repurchase pursuant to the
Song-Beverly Act from 2021 to the present.
Special
Interrogatories 20: State YOUR parameters for determining whether a vehicle
defect(s) poses a “substantial impairment” to use, value, or safety when YOU
evaluate whether a vehicle qualifies for a repurchase pursuant to the
Song-Beverly Act from 2021 to the present.
Special
Interrogatories 21: State YOUR policies and procedures for “promptly”
offering to repurchase or replace a qualifying vehicle pursuant to the
Song-Beverly Act.
Special
Interrogatories 22: State YOUR policies and procedures regarding the timing
(the lapse of time between the request and a response) of responding to a
customer’s request for a vehicle repurchase pursuant to the Song-Beverly Act.
Special
Interrogatories 23: State the content of all policies YOU had in effect
from 2021 to the present under which a consumer in California could obtain a
repurchase of a motor vehicle manufactured or distributed by YOU.
Special
Interrogatories 25: Describe all training given by YOU to PERSONS tasked
with evaluating eligibility for a vehicle repurchase pursuant to the
Song-Beverly Act from 2021 to the present.
Special
Interrogatories 31: Describe YOUR policies and procedures for proactively
complying with the Song-Beverly Act in California by offering a repurchase of a
qualifying vehicle without a consumer request to do so.
Application
In
opposition, Defendant provides it served supplemental responses on Plaintiff
concurrently with its opposition on June 6, 2023. (Tudzin Decl. ¶ 2.) In reply,
Plaintiff provides that Defendant has failed to produce any documents in this
case, including where Defendant previously stated it would provide documents.
Plaintiff also asserts that Defendant’s supplemental responses are unverified
and deficient.
Because
Defendant provided supplemental responses and Plaintiff did not include additionally
separate statements, the court is unable to ascertain whether the supplemental
responses are also deficient. Thus, Plaintiff’s motions are denied as moot.
Plaintiff
also seeks sanctions for each of his motions. However, the imposition of
sanctions would possibly prevent the informal resolution of the discovery
issues present. The court encourages the parties to engage in good faith
discussions to resolve the discovery issues. If the parties fail to properly
engage in the discovery process, the court will be more inclined to grant
sanctions to the prevailing party.
“A trial court has
broad powers to enforce its discovery orders, and may impose sanctions that are
suitable and necessary to enable the party seeking discovery to obtain the
objects of the discovery sought. [Citation.] ‘Misuse of the
discovery process includes failing to respond or submit to authorized
discovery, providing evasive discovery responses, disobeying a court order to
provide discovery, unsuccessfully making or opposing discovery motions without
substantial justification, and failing to meet and confer in good faith to
resolve a discovery dispute when required by statute to do so.’ ” (In re
Marriage of Michaely (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 802, 809.)
Plaintiff’s requests for sanctions
are denied.
CONCLUSION
Plaintiff’s
motions to compel further and motion to compel compliance are denied as moot.
Plaintiff’s requests for sanctions are denied.
Moving
party to give notice.
Dated: June 20, 2023 ___________________________________
Joel
L. Lofton
Judge
of the Superior Court
Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court
indicating their
intention to submit.
Parties intending to appear are strongly encouraged to appear remotely. alhdeptx@lacourt.org