Judge: Jon R. Takasugi, Case: 23STCV04928, Date: 2025-04-02 Tentative Ruling



Case Number: 23STCV04928    Hearing Date: April 2, 2025    Dept: 17

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

 

DEPARTMENT 17

 

TENTATIVE RULING

 

MELODY TAVITIAN-PARRA, et al.

 

 

         vs.

 

AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR COMPANY

 

 Case No.:  23STCV04928

 

 

 

 Hearing Date:  April 2, 2024

 

Plaintiffs’ motion to compel the deposition of Defendant’s PMK is GRANTED. The deposition is ordered to take place within 14 days. Defendant is sanctioned, jointly and severally with counsel, $700.00, payable within 60 days.

 

            On 3/6/2023, Plaintiff Melody Tavitian-Parra and Sonia Parra (collectively, Plaintiffs) filed suit against Defendant American Honda Motor Company (Defendant), alleging violations if the Song-Beverly Warranty Act.

 

            On 2/7/2025, Plaintiff moved to compel the deposition of Defendant’s person most knowledgeable (PMK).

 

Discussion

 

            Plaintiffs argue that good cause exists to compel Defendant to produce a PMK to testify on topics: 1) relating to Defendant’s monitoring, discussions, internal investigations and analysis of the Defects in Plaintiffs’ Vehicle; and 2) establishing that Defendant previously knew of the Defects but nevertheless refused to repurchase the Vehicle.

 

To succeed on a claim brought under the Song-Beverly Act, Plaintiffs bear the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, several elements, including nonconformity of a vehicle that substantially impaired its use, value or safety; presentation of vehicle to manufacturer or authorized representative for repair; and failure to repair the defect after a reasonable number of attempts.” (Ibrahim v. Ford Motor Co. (1989) 214 Cal. App. 3d 878, 886-87; Oregel v. Am. Isuzu Motors, Inc. (2001) 90 Cal. App. 4th 1094, 1101.) The Act also provides a right of action for a buyer to recover damages and other relief when there has been a breach of the implied warranty of merchantability if the vehicle was sold at the time of sale with a known defect. (Cal. Civ. Code. §1794(a); Mexia v. Rinker Boat Co., Inc. (2009) 17 Cal. App. 4th 1297, 1304-1305.)

           

In addition, a buyer may be entitled to a civil penalty of up to two times the actual damages upon a showing that the manufacturer willfully failed to abide by any of its obligations under the Act. (Cal. Civ. Code § 1794(c).) Under the Act, the “manufacturer have an affirmative duty to replace a vehicle or to make restitution to the buyer.” (Lukather v. General Motors, LLC (2010) 181 Cal. App. 4th 1041, 1050; Jensen v. BMW of N. Am., LLC (1995) 35 Cal. App. 4th 112, 136 (in assessing whether a violation is willful, the jury is entitled to consider, among other things, whether “the manufacturer knew the vehicle had not been repaired within a reasonable period or after a reasonable number of attempts.”).

 

Here, the requested testimony—which is focused on gathering evidence relating to Defendant’s monitoring, discussions, and internal investigations and analysis of the Defects contained in Plaintiffs’ vehicle and establishing that Defendant previously knew of the Defects, among others, but nevertheless refused to repurchase the vehicle—is relevant to the issues related to Defendant’s good faith compliance with the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, including breach of the express warranty and implied warranty of merchantability.

 

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs’ motion to compel the deposition of Defendant’s PMK is granted. Defendant is sanctioned, jointly and severally with counsel, $700.00. ($350/hr x 2 hr).

 

It is so ordered.

 

Dated:  April    , 2025

                                                                                                                                                          

   Hon. Jon R. Takasugi
   Judge of the Superior Court

 

 

 

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at smcdept17@lacourt.org by 4 p.m. the day prior as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative.  If all parties to a motion submit, the court will adopt this tentative as the final order.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar.  For more information, please contact the court clerk at (213) 633-0517.