Judge: John J. Kralik, Case: 22BBCV00088, Date: 2023-11-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22BBCV00088    Hearing Date: November 3, 2023    Dept: NCB

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

North Central District

Department B

BACKGROUND

A.    Allegations

Plaintiff Juan Chavarria (“Plaintiff”) alleges that he purchased a 2019 Honda Accord on November 15, 2019, which was manufactured and/or distributed by Defendant American Honda Motor Company, Inc. (“Defendant”).  Plaintiff alleges that he took possession of the vehicle and, during the warranty period, the vehicle contained or developed defects that impaired the use, safety, and/or value of the vehicle.  Plaintiff alleges that the vehicle had a defective engine, lighting system, body system, ignition system, mechanical system, and other complaints.  (Compl., ¶12.) 

  The complaint, filed February 8, 2022, alleges causes of action for: (1) violation of Civil Code, § 1793.2(d); (2) violation of Civil Code, § 1793.2(b); (3) violation of Civil Code, § 1793.2(a)(3); (4) breach of express written warranty (Civil Code, §§ 1791.2(a), 1794); and (5) breach of the implied warranty of merchantability (Civil Code, §§ 1791.1, 1794). 

B.     Motion on Calendar

On May 30, 2023, Defendant filed a motion to compel a vehicle inspection of Plaintiff’s vehicle within 30 days of the hearing on the motion. 

The Court is not in receipt of an opposition brief.

On October 26, 2023, the Court held a Final Status Conference.  At the FSC, the Court continued the trial date from November 6, 2023 to June 17, 2024.  Pursuant to the oral stipulation of counsel, discovery deadlines were not extended to the new trial date. 

LEGAL STANDARD

            CCP § 2031.260(a) states: “Within 30 days after service of a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, the party to whom the demand is directed shall serve the original of the response to it on the party making the demand, and a copy of the response on all other parties who have appeared in the action, unless on motion of the party making the demand, the court has shortened the time for response, or unless on motion of the party to whom the demand has been directed, the court has extended the time for response.” 

            CCP § 2031.300(b) states that if a party to whom a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling is directed fails to serve a timely response to it, the party making the demand may move for an order compelling response to the demand.

            CCP § 2031.320(a) states that “If a party filing a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling under Sections 2031.210, 2031.220, 2031.230, 2031.240, and 2031.280 thereafter fails to permit the inspection, copying, testing, or sampling in accordance with that party's statement of compliance, the demanding party may move for an order compelling compliance.” 

DISCUSSION

Defendant moves to compel Plaintiff to produce his 2019 Honda Accord for a vehicle inspection. 

Defense counsel, Mahfam Sadeghi, states that Plaintiff served a demand for inspection of the vehicle on Plaintiff on March 28, 2023, but Plaintiff did not provide any response to the demand.  (Sadeghi Decl., ¶¶2-3, Ex. A.)  Mr. Sadeghi states that on April 5, 2023, he inquired from Plaintiff’s counsel about the availability of the subject vehicle and Plaintiff’s counsel presented some inspection dates, but Defendant’s expert had a conflict on the provided dates.  (Id., ¶4, Ex. B.)  On April 25, 2023, defense counsel again inquired about possible dates and Plaintiff’s counsel responded that the vehicle would not be available for inspection until September 2023 because he had summer vacation plans.  (Id.) 

Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s refusal to produce the subject vehicle for an inspection until September 2023 is not justified in light of the initially set trial date of November 6, 2023.  The Court notes that on October 26, 2023, the trial date was continued to June 17, 2024.  However, CCP § 2024.020(a) states: “Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, any party shall be entitled as a matter of right to complete discovery proceedings on or before the 30th day, and to have motions concerning discovery heard on or before the 15th day, before the date initially set for the trial of the action.”  This motion was initially set to be heard on November 3, 2023.  At the time the trial was continued to June 17, 2024, the parties orally stipulated not to extend discovery deadline to the new trial date.  As such, this motion is technically untimely as it was not reserved at least 15 days prior to the initially set jury trial date.  Thus, the motion is procedurally untimely and may be denied on this basis.

However, the Court notes that Defendant filed this motion on May 30, 2023, months prior to the initially set trial date.  (It is unclear why Defendant did not apply ex parte to advance the hearing date.)  Further, Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to this motion and, based on Defendant’s representations, does not appear to oppose producing his vehicle for inspection; rather, Plaintiff’s counsel lacked availability to be present at the time of the inspection if it took place during the summer.  As such, to avoid further delays in this case and to promote the parties’ efforts to settle the case during their private mediation, the Court will consider the substantive merits of this motion and grant the motion so that Plaintiff is ordered to produce the vehicle promptly for inspection. 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Defendant American Honda Motor Company, Inc.’s motion to compel a vehicle inspection is granted.  The parties are ordered to meet and confer to schedule a mutually agreeable date for the inspection of Plaintiff’s vehicle that is subject to this action.  The parties should agree upon a date within 30 days of this order, unless the parties mutually agree otherwise.

Defendant shall provide notice of this order.

Warning regarding electronic appearances:  All software for remote or electronic appearances is subject to malfunction based on system weakness and human error, which can originate from any of the multiple parties participating each morning. The seamless operation of the Court’s electronic appearance software is dependent on numerous inconstant and fluctuating factors that may impact whether you, or other counsel or the Court itself can be heard in a particular case. Not all these factors are within the control of the courtroom staff. For example, at times, the system traps participants in electronic purgatories where they cannot be heard and where the courtroom staff is not aware of their presence. If you call the courtroom, please be respectful of the fact that a court hearing is going on, and that the courtroom staff is doing their best to use an imperfect system. If it is truly important to you to be heard, please show up to the courtroom in the normal way. Parking is free or reasonable in Burbank.