Judge: John J. Kralik, Case: 23GDCV02696, Date: 2024-08-02 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23GDCV02696 Hearing Date: August 2, 2024 Dept: NCB
North
Central District
|
aurora mojica, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ford motor
company, et al., Defendants. |
Case No.: 23GDCV02696 Hearing
Date: August 2, 2024 [TENTATIVE]
order RE: motion to compel further responses |
BACKGROUND
A.
Allegations
Plaintiffs Aurora Mojica and Misael Leyva
Galvez(“Plaintiff”) allege that on March 20, 2022, Plaintiff entered into a
warranty contact with Defendant Ford Motor Company (“FMC”) regarding the
purchase of a 2021 Ford F-150 vehicle.
Plaintiffs allege that the vehicle was delivered with serious defects
and nonconformities to the warranty and developed serious defects and
nonconformities to the warranty, including but not limited to, engine, electrical,
structural, transmission, and emission system defects. Plaintiffs
allege that they seek to revoke acceptance of the sales contract.
Plaintiffs
allege that they delivered the vehicle or repairs in December 2022, September
2023, and October 2023. Plaintiffs
allege that they delivered the vehicle to Defendant Galpin Motors
Inc., dba Galpin Ford (“Galpin”) for repairs
on several occasions, but Galpin failed to use ordinary care and skill to
properly store, prepare, and repair the subject vehicle.
The complaint, filed December 29, 2023,
alleges causes of action for: (1) violation of Song Beverly Act – breach of
express warranty; (2) violation of Song Beverly Act – breach of implied
warranty; (3) violation of Song Beverly § 1793.2; and (4) negligent repair.
B.
Motion on Calendar
On June 28, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a
motion to compel Defendant FMC’s further responses to Requests for Production,
set one (“RPD”).
On July 24, 2024, FMC filed an untimely opposition
brief.
On July 25, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a reply
brief.
DISCLOSURE
AND ORDER
Prior to ruling on the motion(s), the
Court makes the following 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.
The parties are ordered to attend the
hearing. Prior to 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 August 30, 2024 at 8:30 a.m. No further briefing will be permitted on the
motion.
Plaintiff shall provide notice of this
order.
DATED: August 2,
2024 ___________________________
John
Kralik
Judge
of the Superior Court