Judge: John J. Kralik, Case: 23BBCV00526, Date: 2024-02-16 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23BBCV00526 Hearing Date: February 23, 2024 Dept: NCB
North Central District
JUSTIN WHITER, Plaintiff, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, et al., Defendants. |
Case No.: 23BBCV00526 Hearing Date: February 23, 2024 [TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES |
BACKGROUND
A. Allegations
Plaintiff Justin Whiter (“Plaintiff”) alleges that he entered into a warranty contract with Defendant Ford Motor Company (“Ford”) on April 18, 2019 for a 2019 Ford Fusion vehicle, which was manufactured and/or distributed by Ford. He alleges that the warranty contained a bumper-bumper warranty, powertrain warranty, emission warranty, etc. He alleges that the vehicle contained nonconformities, which manifested during the express warranty period, including engine defects, transmission defects, and other defects. Plaintiff seeks reimbursement or replacement pursuant to the Song Beverly Act.
Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant Sunrise Ford (“Sunrise”) owed him a duty of care to store, prepare, and repair the subject vehicle in accordance with industry standards, but that Sunrise breached this duty by failing to do so.
The complaint, filed March 7, 2023, 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 the implied warranty of merchantability (Civ. Code, §§ 1791.1, 1794, 1795.5); and (5) negligent repair.
B. Motion on Calendar
On October 31, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel Ford’s further responses to Requests for Production of Documents (“RPD”).
On February 2, 2024, Ford filed an opposition brief.
On February 8, 2024, Plaintiff filed reply papers.
The matter initially came for hearing on February 23, 2024. Prior to the hearing, the judicial officer of Department B of the Burbank Courthouse disclosed its association with Ford Motor Company. At the hearing, Plaintiff’s counsel represented that they would seek recusal of the judicial officer, but would need approval from the law firm. The Court continued the hearing to February 23, 2024 to provide time for Plaintiff to inform the Court whether a recusal is necessary.
DISCUSSION
The Court continues the matter on this motion to compel further responses in order to make this disclosure.
DISCLOSURE: John Kralik was an associate of the Law Firm of Hughes Hubbard & Reed from 1979-1987 and a partner in Hughes Hubbard & Reed from 1988-1993. During that time he worked on Ford Motor Company matters, principally on products liability cases from 1976 (when he was a summer associate) until 1987. Ford was a major client during his partnership with the firm, and so some portion of his partner draw would have originated with Ford. The Court does not feel that it is biased in this matter as the result of this long ago legal representation but recognizes that the parties may have a different perception. If any party feels that the Court’s prior work at Hughes Hubbard creates an appearance of bias, please file an appropriate request for the Court to recuse prior to the next hearing in this matter. It is not necessary to file a peremptory challenge under CCP 170.6.
At the February 16, 2024 hearing, Plaintiff’s counsel represented that they were seeking approval from their law firm to seek a recusal of the judicial officer from this matter. The Court will inquire as to the status of this approval at the hearing.
CONCLUSION AND ORDER
The parties are ordered to attend the hearing. Prior the hearing, counsel should discuss with their clients whether they would like this case to proceed in this Department. If the parties have objections, they should be raised at the hearing so that the Court may take appropriate steps to recuse itself from the action and transfer the case.
If the parties are willing to waive these issues, then the Court will continue the hearing on the motion to compel further responses to March 1, 2024 at 8:30 a.m. No further briefing will be permitted on the motion.