Judge: John J. Kralik, Case: 24NNCV04271, Date: 2025-03-14 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 24NNCV04271 Hearing Date: March 14, 2025 Dept: NCB
North
Central District
|
ana a. pleitez, Plaintiff, v. kia america,
inc., Defendant. |
Case No.: 24NNCV04271 Hearing Date: March 14, 2025 [TENTATIVE]
order RE: motion to compel further responses |
BACKGROUND
A.
Allegations
Plaintiff Ana A. Pleitez (“Plaintiff”) alleges
that on January 27, 2024, she purchased a 2024 Kia Sportage. She alleges that Defendant Kia America, Inc. (“Defendant”)
issued a written warranty. Plaintiff
alleges her claims arise out of the warranty and repair obligations of
Defendant. She alleges that the subject
vehicle was delivered with serous defects and nonconformities to the warranty, such
as steering, engine, electrical, emission, and suspension system defects. (Compl., ¶10.) Plaintiff alleges that she presented the
vehicle for repair three times.
The complaint, filed September 13, 2024,
alleges causes of action for: (1) breach of express warranty; (2) breach of implied
warranty; (3) violation of the Song Beverly Act, Civil Code, § 1793.2.
B.
Motion on Calendar
On
January 21, 2025, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel Defendant’s further
responses to Requests for Production of Documents, set one (“RPD”).
On March 3, 2025, Defendant filed an
opposition brief.
On March 6, 2025, Plaintiff filed a reply
brief.
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff
moves to compel Defendant’s responses to RPD Nos. 1-31.
In
opposition, Defendant states that it served verifications to its discovery
responses on March 3, 2025 (the same day as the opposition brief). It argues that there is no good cause to
grant this motion, the RPDs are overly broad, and they seek irrelevant
information.
The
Court will limit the discovery allowed in this action to conform with CCP §
871.26.
CCP § 871.26 was
recently enacted after the Legislature recognized “the massive
increase in lemon law cases” could “cripple” the (California Bill Analysis, A.B. 1755 Assem., 8/30/2024.) In Assembly Bill 1755, the Legislature
recognized:
In the years since the courts COVID-19 emergency procedures were
lifted, California has seen a dramatic increase in the number filings
litigating Californias lemon law statutes in its courts. Between 2022 and 2023,
the number of lemon law case filings in California courts nearly doubled from
14,892 filings in 2022 to 22,655 filings in 2023. Indeed, according to the
California Judges Association, nearly ten percent of all civil filings in Los
Angeles County are now related to lemon law disputes. As a result of the
massive increase in lemon law cases, Californians seeking to adjudicate their
claims related to defective motor vehicles (and other civil disputes) are now
waiting years to get their day in court. …
…
Each additional lemon law filing represents new motion hearings,
status conferences, and other actions by the court that necessitate time ona[sic]
judges calendars. As a result of the increase in filings, lemon law cases are
being severely delayed, thus limiting Californians ability to seek redress for
defective cars. Furthermore, the spillover impact from the increased lemon law
filings is now causing the general backlog for civil cases to grow once more
even after the successful deployment of technology during the pandemic to
reduce civil case backlogs. Given that California[’]s courts are projecting
that upward of 30,000 lemon law cases are likely to be filed by the end of
2024, if action is not taken to streamline the adjudication of these disputes,
lemon law filings are poised to cripple the entirety of Californias civil
justice system.
…
Given that lemon law cases are [sic] typically very document-heavy
matters and involve a limited universe of documents, many of these discovery
disputes represent little more than unnecessary litigation tactics that only
serve to delay justice.
Recognizing that litigating futile discovery motions can
significantly prolong relatively simple lemon law cases, this bill seeks to
streamline discovery in lemon law actions.
…
AB 1755 seeks to streamline civil procedure associated with lemon
law cases which will have a positive impact on court congestion[.] In
particular, the early exchange of discovery documents is an important component
as courts are seeing massive numbers of motions to compel discovery documents
in lemon law filings. AB 1755 provides a statutory list of documents each party
must provide within the cases first few months, thus eliminating the need for
parties to file motions or for the court to conduct hearings on those motions.
(California Bill Analysis, A.B. 1755 Assem., 8/30/2024.)
While A.B. 1755 shows an awareness of the
issues, it failed to address these issues with sufficient seriousness. The
legislature, having created a conflagration of litigation, appears to be
passing out squirt guns to the judiciary to combat the problem. The new
legislation fails to make any serious effort to address the real source of the
problem: the extraordinary incentives given to plaintiffs’ lawyers to file
these cases because of the opportunities to be compensated by both sides of the
litigation. Early signs are that the legislation will have little effect on the
number of cases filed. The discovery limitations contemplated by the law have
already been adopted by many courts in Los Angeles, which is the location of
nearly half of the state’s Lemon Law cases. In this courtroom alone, there are
144 Song-Beverly cases against automobile manufacturers, and more are being
filed every day. In Los Angeles County last year (2024) there were 10,545 total
filings in the Los Angeles Superior Court, and this year’s filings, after
passage of the legislation, are being made at a faster rate than last year.
Normally, contingency fee lawyers are
rational economic actors. They do not file cases where they do not expect to
make money, and they file more cases where they expect to make more money. In
Lemon Law cases, they often negotiate with the manufacturers for payment of
attorneys’ fees to themselves while simultaneously negotiating for a payout to
their client—out of which they will be paid a contingency fee. The resultant
payout to the attorney will often exceed the amount paid in even the highest
percentage contingency attorneys’ fees agreements. Neither the legislature, nor the courts, nor
the state bar have been willing to address the issues posed by this
arrangement. There are very few golden opportunities for attorneys like the
opportunities presented by Lemon Law litigation, and there are no shortage of
rational economic actors responding to these incentives.
Most lawsuits have an inherent economic
limitation in that rational parties on both sides will be reluctant to cause
the cost of the litigation to exceed the amount in issue. Lemon Law litigation,
on the other hand, provides an extraordinary and one-sided incentive to a
non-party, plaintiffs’ attorneys, to cause the cost of the litigation to far
exceed the amount at issue. As noted, the new legislation does little to
address this issue, which is the chief cause of the massive increase in
filings.
The legislative history reads as if the
lifting of the “COVID emergency procedures” has something to do with the
litigation increase. On the contrary, it is the continuation of such
procedures, such as the elimination of in-person hearings, that have generally
lowered the cost of all lawsuits, thus incentivizing the filing of additional
lawsuits, including weak and smaller cases that would not otherwise have been
filed. Whether such new procedures are considered good or bad, they alter the
cost of prosecution of a lawsuit in a way that results in additional filings of
all kinds, including Lemon Law cases. When the cost of filing and prosecuting a
lawsuit are reduced, more lawsuits will be filed.
While the limited remedies of A.B. 1755
apply only to cases filed after January 1, 2025, the Court sees no reason to
hesitate to use them as a matter of judicial discretion in the ongoing cases
that created the need for legislation.
The Court orders the parties to comply with CCP § 871.26. Pending
further order of the Court, the Court will limit discovery in this action to
the discovery outlined in section 871.26 and will require that discovery
responses and production of documents contemplated by that section be completed
by both parties by the end of the business day on April 18, 2025.
CONCLUSION AND
ORDER
Plaintiff Ana A. Pleitez’s motion to
compel Defendant Kia America, Inc.’s further responses to the RPD is granted to
the extent that the parties are ordered to comply with CCP § 871.26’s discovery
obligations. The Court will limit
discovery in this action to the discovery outlined in section 871.26 and will
require that discovery responses and production of documents be completed by
the end of the business day on April 18, 2025.
Plaintiffs or Defendants may move the Court to lift the stay as to
specified discovery after the completion of mediation.
No sanctions were requested.
Plaintiff shall
provide notice of this order.
DATED: March 14, 2025 ___________________________
John
J. Kralik
Judge
of the Superior Court