Judge: John J. Kralik, Case: 24NNCV04675, Date: 2025-05-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24NNCV04675    Hearing Date: May 30, 2025    Dept: NCB

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

North Central District

Department B

BACKGROUND

A.    Allegations

Plaintiffs Jennifer Lopez and Jose Castillo Ortega (“Plaintiffs”) allege that on June 29, 2022, they entered into a warranty contract with Defendant Kia America, Inc. (“Defendant”) regarding a new 2022 Kia Telluride for a total price of $25,000.  They allege that defects and nonconformities to the warranty manifested themselves within the applicable express warranty period that impaired the use, value, and/or safety of the subject vehicle.  Plaintiffs allege that they delivered the vehicle to Defendant’s repair facility for repair of the nonconformities, but Defendant was unable to conform the vehicle to the applicable express warranties after a reasonable number of repair attempts.  Plaintiffs allege that Defendant failed to promptly offer to repurchase or replace the vehicle or make restitution.

The complaint, filed September 30, 2024, alleges a single cause of action for violation of Song-Beverly Act – breach of express warranty. 

B.     Motions on Calendar

There are 3 motions on calendar.

On March 14, 2025, Plaintiffs filed 3 motions to compel Defendant’s further responses to: (1) Form Interrogatories, set one (“FROG”); (2) Special Interrogatories, set one (“SROG”); and (3) Requests for Production of Documents, set one (“RPD”). 

            On May 16, 2025, Defendant filed opposition briefs.

            On May 22, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a combined reply brief.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiffs move to compel Defendant’s further responses to FROG Nos. 12.1, 15.1, and 17.1; SROG Nos. 1, 8-17, 24-25, 29-30, and 40-41; and RPD Nos. 1-2, 18-28, 30-41, and 44-46. 

The Court has reviewed the discovery at issue and most of the issues appear to involve Plaintiffs’ arguments that Defendant has not sufficiently identified documents in response to FROG and SROG responses and that Defendant has not produced documents despite Plaintiff signing a protective order on February 21, 2025. 

In its opposition to the RPDs, Defendant argues that it has produced all relevant documents.  In its opposition to the FROGs and SROGs, Defendant argues that it has produced supplemental documents on May 9, 2025, which include the Warranty and Consumer Information Manual, communications with Plaintiff, internal records relating to repair history and policies, dealership communications and call logs, and documents identified in SROG Nos. 1 and 8-17 and FROG No. 15.1.  (Opp. re ROGs at p.4.)  As such, portions of the motions may already be moot in light of Defendant’s supplemental responses that were served after Plaintiffs filed these 3 motions. 

To ensure that discovery is streamlined, 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 civil justice system.  (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[sic] civil justice system.

…

Given that lemon law cases are 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’s initial disclosures obligations.  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. 

Plaintiffs seek sanctions against Defendant for bringing these motions.  The Court denies the requests for sanctions at this time. 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Plaintiffs’ motions to compel Defendant’s further responses to the FROG, SROG, and RPD are granted to the extent that the parties are ordered to comply with CCP § 871.26’s discovery obligations regarding the production of documents.  It appears that portions of the motions may already be moot in light of Defendant’s further responses after the filing of the motions.  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 August 1, 2025. 

No sanctions will be awarded on these motions.

Plaintiffs shall give notice of this order.

DATED: May 30, 2025                                                          ___________________________

                                                                                          John Kralik

                                                                                          Judge of the Superior Court