Judge Lee W. Tsao, Case Number: 22NWCV00772, Date: 2024-11-20 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 22NWCV00772, Date: 2024-11-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22NWCV00772 Hearing Date: November 20, 2024 Dept: C

MARTINEZ v. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC.

CASE NO.: 22NWCV00772

HEARING: 11/20/2024

TENTATIVE ORDER

I. Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc.’s Motion for Summary Adjudication is CONTINUED to February 19, 2025 at 10:30 a.m. in Dept. SE-C.

II. Plaintiff Andrea Martinez’s Motion to Compel Compliance with the Court’s Order dated June 11, 2024, is ADVANCED from May 29, 2025 to today’s date and GRANTED. Defendant’s PMQ is ordered to appear for deposition within 30 days. No sanctions.

Plaintiff to give notice.

American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (Defendant) moves for summary adjudication as to Andrea Martinez’s (Plaintiff) fraudulent inducement – concealment cause of action and prayer for punitive damages.

Background

This is a lemon law action. On August 29, 2022, Plaintiff filed a complaint regarding her 2019 Honda Pilot, (Subject Vehicle) purchased on March 19, 2019. Plaintiff alleges three causes of action: (1) violation of Song-Beverly Act – breach of express warranty, (2) violation of Song-Beverly Act – breach of implied warranty, and (3) fraudulent inducement – concealment. Plaintiff alleges Defendant sold the Subject Vehicle knowing there was a transmission defect.

Discussion

Defendant seeks summary adjudication as to Plaintiff’s cause of action for fraudulent – concealment and prayer for punitive damages.

On November 6, 2024, counsel for Plaintiff Timothy Lupinek filed an affidavit regarding Plaintiff’s opposition pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 437c subd. (h). Plaintiff argues that she lacks evidence required to oppose Defendant’s motion for summary adjudication because Defendant did not provide a qualified deponent in response to Plaintiff’s motion to compel deposition attendance of Defendant’s person most qualified for matter nos. 1-28. (Lupinek Affidavit, ¶¶ 5, 6.) Matter nos. 1-28 request deposition testimony related to the torque converter lock-up clutch equipped in the Subject Vehicle’s transmission. (Lupinek Affidavit, ¶ 7.)

Code of Civil Procedure section 437c subd. (h) states that “[i]f it appears from the affidavits submitted in opposition to a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication, or both, that facts essential to justify opposition may exist but cannot, for reasons stated, be presented, the court shall deny the motion, order a continuance to permit affidavits to be obtained or discovery to be had, or make any other order as may be just.”

“The nonmoving party seeking a continuance must show: (1) the facts to be obtained are essential to opposing the motion; (2) there is reason to believe such facts may exist; and (3) the reasons why additional time is needed to obtain these facts. [Citations.]” (Wachs v. Curry (1993)13 Cal.App.4th 616, 623.) If these factors are met, a continuance is mandatory. Danieley v. Goldmine Ski Associates, Inc. (1990) 218 Cal.App.3d 111, 127.

In the affidavit, Plaintiff’s counsel includes deposition testimony of Defendant’s person most qualified. (Lupinek Affidavit, Exh. C.) In the deposition testimony, Kaneisha Jones states she does not know what a torque converter lock-up clutch does. (Lupinek Affidavit, Exh. C.) She further states she does not know why 2019 Honda Pilot vehicles are equipped with torque-converter lock-up clutches. (Lupinek Affidavit, Exh. C.) It is clear that Defendant did not put a person qualified to provide deposition testimony regarding the Subject Vehicle’s transmission because the deponent did not have knowledge about a relevant component. Plaintiff argues these facts would aid in responding to Defendant’s claims that Plaintiff lacks evidence that Defendant was the only party with knowledge of defects in the torque converter lock-up clutch. (Lupinek Affidavit, ¶ 8.) The Court finds that Plaintiff lacks essential facts to oppose this motion and there is reason to believe with a deponent knowledgeable about the transmission, relevant facts may exist.

On November 6, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel compliance with the Court’s order dated June 11, 2024. Plaintiff requires additional time to conduct the deposition and learn relevant facts.

Accordingly, Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc.’s Motion for Summary Adjudication is CONTINUED to February 19, 2025 at 10:30 a.m. in Dept. SE-C.

Plaintiff Andrea Martinez’s Motion to Compel Compliance with the Court’s Order dated June 11, 2024, is ADVANCED from May 29, 2025 to today’s date and GRANTED. Defendant’s PMQ is ordered to appear for deposition within 30 days. The parties may stipulate to a longer period. Defendant’s PMQ must be prepared to testify regarding matter nos. 1-28 in Plaintiff’s Notice of Deposition. No sanctions.