Judge: John J. Kralik, Case: 24NNCV04332, Date: 2025-05-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24NNCV04332    Hearing Date: May 2, 2025    Dept: NCB

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

North Central District

Department B

BACKGROUND

A.    Allegations of Complaint

Plaintiff Sergio Garcia aka Sergio Humberto Garcia (“Plaintiff”) alleges that on November 26, 2022, he entered into a written warranty contract with Defendant Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A., Inc. (“Defendant”) regarding a new 2022 Toyota Corolla, which he purchased for $47,745.82.  Plaintiff alleges that defects and nonconformities manifested during the express warranty period.  He alleges that he took the vehicle to an authorized repair facility for repair, but Defendant was unable to conform the vehicle to the express warranty after a reasonable number of repair attempts.

The complaint, filed September 17, 2024, alleges a single cause of action for violation of the Song Beverly Act – breach of express warranty. 

B.     Motions on Calendar

            There are four motions on calendar.  

On January 30, 2025, Plaintiff filed motions to compel Defendant’s further responses to: (1) Form Interrogatories, set one (“FROG”); (2) Special Interrogatories, set one (“SROG”); (3) Requests for Production of Documents, set one (“RPD”); and (4) Requests for Admission, set one (“RFA”). 

            On April 21, 2025, Defendant filed opposition briefs to each of the motions. 

            On April 25, 2025, Plaintiff filed combined reply briefs.

DISCUSSION                                                                                              

            Plaintiff moves to compel Defendant’s responses to FROGs, SROGs, RPDs, and RFAs.

            In its opposition briefs, Defendant argues that it timely served objection-only responses to Plaintiff’s discovery but also informed Plaintiff that it was working on supplemental responses.  Defendant argues that despite its offer to provide supplemental responses, Plaintiff refused to meet and confer and instead filed this motion. 

            In reply, Plaintiff argues that while Defendant’s papers state that the opposition briefs were electronically served, Plaintiff’s counsel has reviewed all their email servers but no opposition documents were served to its emails, such that the Court should not consider the opposition papers.

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 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 deadline set by the Court’s order. 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Plaintiff Sergio Garcia aka Sergio Humberto Garcia’s motions to compel Defendant Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A., Inc.’s further responses to the FROG, SROG, RPD, and RFA are granted to the extent that the parties are ordered to comply with CCP § 871.26’s discovery obligations.  Pending further order, 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 the end of the business day on July 20, 2025. 

Plaintiff shall provide notice of this order.

DATED: May 2, 2025                                                            ___________________________

                                                                              John J. Kralik

                                                                              Judge of the Superior Court