Judge: Malcolm Mackey, Case: 21STCV45978, Date: 2023-04-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV45978    Hearing Date: April 13, 2023    Dept: 55

RAMIREZ v. FCA US LLC ,                                                            21STCV45978

Hearing Date:  4/13/23,  Dept. 55.

#7:   

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES FROM DEFENDANT FCA US LLC, AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS.

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION FROM DEFENDANT FCA US LLC, AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS.

Notice:  Okay

Opposition

MP:  Plaintiffs

RP:  Defendant

Summary

On 12/16/21, plaintiffs filed a Lemon-Law Complaint, alleging that they purchased a 2020 Jeep Compass having unrepaired issues not conforming to warranties, so plaintiffs requested a remedy, but Defendant FCA’s offer did not comply with Song-Beverly Act, because it made improper deductions from the restitution amount, and contained improper terms.

MP Positions

Moving parties request an order compelling Defendant’s further responses to special interrogatories numbers 19-24, 30-39, 48, 50-53, 57, 59, and 60, and document requests numbers 18, 25-28, 39-40, and 43-48, and imposing monetary sanctions against Defendant and counsel ($2,595.00 and $2,530.00), on grounds including the following:

·         Defendant’s interrogatory responses were not Code-compliant, because they did not answer the questions asked and contained numerous objections.

·         Defendant stated objections to the document requests, and no in compliance with the Discovery Act.

·         Special interrogatories 18-24 seek information regarding FCA’s policies and procedures with respect to its handling of consumer requests for relief under the Song-Beverly Act.

·         The document requests include seeking FCA’s policies and procedures on various issues related to FCA’s compliance with the Song-Beverly Act, including for determining what constitutes a repair presentation (RFP 25), a substantial impairment to the vehicle’s use, value, or safety (RFP 26), and a reasonable number of repair attempts when determining eligibility for a vehicle repurchase under the Song-Beverly Act (RFP 27), and the turn-around time to respond to a vehicle repurchase request (RFP 28). The requests also seek FCA’s policies and procedures related to requiring a release in connection with its prelitigation offer and all documents that constituted FCA’s prelitigation offer and that Plaintiffs were required to sign. (RFP 39-40 and 43-48.)  Request number 18 seeks FCA’s operative Franchise  Agreement between FCA and FCA’s authorized dealership that sold the vehicle to Plaintiffs.

·         A manufacturer’s policies related to how it deals with consumer complaints and its decision on whether to replace or repurchase nonconforming vehicles, are important in determining whether a manufacturer has committed a willful violation of the Act. (Jensen v. BMW of North America, Inc. (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 112, 136.

·         Despite Plaintiffs’ meet and confer efforts, Defendant has not provided any supplemental responses.

RP Positions

Opposing party advocates denying, for reasons including the following:

·         The motions are moot after recent service of complete supplemental responses.

·         Defendant has produced or will produce all documents responsive in its possession custody and control, to Requests Nos. 18, 25-28, 39, 40, and 43-48.

·         The initial objections such as relevance had merit, but Defendant resolved the discovery issues by supplementing anyway.

·         Some of the discovery related to subject matter unrelated to Plaintiff’s vehicle purchase or the actual allegations of the operative complaint.

·         Plaintiff’s meeting and conferring was not in good faith.

·         Sanctions are unjustified under these circumstances.

Tentative Ruling

Both motions are ordered off calendar.

According to the opposing declarations, on 3/30/23 Defendant FCA US served supplemental, code-compliant responses to the discovery requests.

Where respondents served discovery responses after parties filed motions to compel responses, courts have broad discretion as to ruling, including ordering the motion off calendar while requiring the propounding party to file any proper motion to compel further responses.  Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc., v. Klugman (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 409.

*IF PARTIES WOULD LIKE TO SUBMIT ON THE COURT’S TENTATIVE RULING, PLEASE CALL THE COURTROOM AT 213-633-0655*