Judge: Margaret L. Oldendorf, Case: 22AHCV01340, Date: 2023-05-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22AHCV01340    Hearing Date: February 6, 2024    Dept: P

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

NORTHEAST DISTRICT

          I.        INTRODUCTION

          Andy Meraz purchased a new Honda Accord in 2022. He sues Honda for defects he is alleged to have experienced with the vehicle. The pleading alleges that the vehicle is equipped with a defective driver-assistance safety system. The Honda Sensing system, also called Collision Mitigation Braking System (CMBS), includes radar, cameras, and a computer system. The purpose of the CMBS is to avoid front-end collisions by detecting and computing things like vehicle speed and objects in the road.  

Meraz alleges that the CBMS is capable of applying brakes when it detects a chance of collision. The gist of the complaint is that the system is defective and frequently malfunctions. It is alleged that system can be thrown off by things such as bad weather and changes in the light on the roadway. Meraz alleges that because of these defects, vehicles can be brought to a sudden stop in the roadway, causing vehicles behind them to have to swerve to avoid a collision. Meraz himself experienced several occasions when his Honda braked on its own. He also complained that the speed limit on the vehicle’s screen is often higher than the actual posted speed limit. Meraz alleges he took his vehicle to an authorized repair facility a number of times with these complaints but was told that the technicians were unable to replicate the issue and that the vehicle was safe to drive.  

The complaint alleges two Song-Beverly cause of action for breach of express and implied warranties. It also includes a third cause of action for fraudulent concealment. Meraz alleges that Honda was aware of the Honda Sensing defect and failed to disclose it.

On December 11, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiff Meraz’s motion to compel further responses to his Request for Production of Documents No. 55.

Before the Court is Honda’s motion for reconsideration filed on December 21, 2023. Honda argues that: (1) the Cadena class action is now a consolidated action; (2) the protective order in Cadena has changed; and (3) the documents requested are not within Honda’s control and are irrelevant in this action.

The Court DENIES the motion for reconsideration.

II. REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

American Honda’s Request for Judicial Notice

          American Honda requests judicial notice of: (1) Plaintiffs’ Third Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint in Kathleen Cadena, et al. v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc. and (2) Stipulated Amended Protective Order in the same case. Because these documents are records of a California court, the request for judicial notice is granted. (EC § 452(d).)

III.     LEGAL STANDARD 

Code of Civil Procedure Section 1008 provides, in pertinent part: 

“(a) When an application for an order has been made to a judge, or to a court, and refused in whole or in part, or granted, or granted conditionally, or on terms, any party affected by the order may, within 10 days after service upon the party of written notice of entry of the order and based upon new or different facts, circumstances, or law, make an application to the same judge or court that made the order, to reconsider the matter and modify, amend, or revoke the prior order. The party making the application shall state by affidavit what application was made before, when and to what judge, what order or decisions were made, and what new or different facts, circumstances, or law are claimed to be shown. 

(b) A party who originally made an application for an order which was refused in whole or in part, or granted conditionally or on terms, may make a subsequent application for the same order upon new or different facts, circumstances, or law, in which case it shall be shown by affidavit what application was made before, when and to what judge, what order or decisions were made, and what new or different facts circumstances, or law are claimed to be shown. For a failure to comply with this subdivision, any order made on a subsequent application may be revoked or set aside on an ex parte motion. 

… 

(e) This section specifies the court’s jurisdiction with regard to applications for reconsideration of its orders and renewals of previous motions and applies to all applications to reconsider any order of a judge or court, or for the renewal of a previous motion, whether the order deciding the previous matter or motion is interim or final. No application to reconsider any order or for the renewal of a previous motion may be considered by any judge or court unless made according to this section.” (CCP § 1008(a), (b), (e).) 

A motion for reconsideration under § 1008 requires that the moving party present new or different facts that were not previously considered by the Court.  (New York Times Co. v. Superior Court (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 206, 212-13.)  However, the burden under CCP Section 1008 “is comparable to that of a party seeking a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence: the information must be such that the moving party could not, with reasonable diligence, have discovered or produced it at the trial.”  (Ibid.; Even Zohar Construction & Remodeling, Inc. v. Bellaire Townhouses, LLC (2015) 61 Cal.4th 830, 833 [finding that § 1008 imposes the special requirement of having to not only show new or different facts, circumstances, or law, but also to “show diligence with a satisfactory explanation for not presenting the new or different information earlier…”].)  Reconsideration cannot be granted based on claims that the court misinterpreted the law in its initial ruling because this is not a "new" or "different" matter.  (Gilberd v. AC Transit (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 1494, 1500.) 

IV.     ANALYSIS

A. No New or Different Facts Before the Court

Here, Honda urges that the December 11 order granting Meraz’s motion to compel further responses should be reconsidered. The Court’s December 11 ruling ordered a further response to Meraz’ Request for Production No. 55. In support of its motion for reconsideration, Honda provides the Third Amended Complaint in Cadena and the Stipulated Protective Order in Cadena  (both of which the Court has taken judicial notice of). Honda also provides the declaration of its attorney, Theodore Dorenkamp. In pertinent part, Dorenkamp declares “The documents produced by the defendant in the Cadena Class Action were obtained by defense counsel from numerous other entities, not from AHM.” (Dorenkamp Decl. ¶ 5.) He also declares that “other of AHM’s documents numbering more than 4,600 pages contain significant personally identifiable information that would have to be redacted and could not be completed by the Court’s January 12, 2024, deadline.” (Dorenkamp Decl. ¶ 9.)

          Honda urges that it could not produce these facts earlier, as it is responding to Meraz’s reply filed in support of the motion to compel, as well as Meraz’s counsel’s arguments at the December 11 hearing. (See Kollander Const. v. Super. Ct. (2002) 98 Cal.App.4th 304, 314.)

          Honda alternatively argues that the compelled response to Request for Production No. 55 should be limited. (Motion p. 10: 3-4.) Specifically, Honda urges “Discovery produced by third parties in a class action involving vehicles and claims not at issue in this case does not pass this test [relevancy].” (Motion p. 10: 19-20.)

          In opposition, Meraz urges that the new facts, namely the two documents filed in the Cadena action, were or should have been known to Honda before the hearing on the motion to compel on December 11, 2023. Meraz’s counsel notes that his reply was filed November 13, 2023, and the hearing was not until December 11, 2023; so there was sufficient time for Honda to discover these documents and submit a request for judicial notice before the December 11 hearing. (Opposition, p. 5: 3-5.)

 Meraz also argues that the stipulated protective order in Cadena is neither new nor relevant, as it contains the same basic provisions as the one the Court took judicial notice of on December 11. This argument is well-taken. Honda does not refute the similarity of the two protective orders in their reply.  Secondly, Meraz urges that the scope of the Cadena class action is not relevant to the instant case. (Opposition p. 7: 14-15.) Meraz also urges that Honda has not presented adequate explanation as to why these documents were not presented earlier.

In reply, Honda urges that, at the time that the motion to compel was scheduled to be heard on November 20, 2023, Honda’s current counsel, Bowman and Brooke LLP, did not represent Honda in the Cadena action and “would have no reason or time to search the Cadena Class Action docket to challenge a Request for Judicial Notice.” (Reply, p. 2: 9-10.) In support, Honda cites Garcia v. Hejmadi for the proposition that a motion for reconsideration requires a showing of reasonable diligence and a satisfactory explanation as to why the information now presented was not presented at the first hearing.  (Garcia v. Hejmadi (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 674, 690.) However, this does not clarify why Counsel did not investigate Meraz’s November 13 request for judicial notice when the hearing date was continued to December 11. Honda thus knew that opposing party Meraz was seeking judicial notice of documents in the Cadena action.  

Additionally, the third amended complaint in Cadena in fact contains allegations regarding issues with the Honda Sensing systems (Cadena 3^rd Amended Complaint ¶¶ 24, 33). Though Cadena does not allege defects specifically as to Plaintiff Meraz’s vehicle, a 2022 Honda Accord, it does allege that earlier models, the 2018-2019 Honda Accords and 2017-2019 Honda CRVs, had defects with the Honda sensing system. (Id. at ¶ 23.) Information as to the same or similar system entitled “Honda Sensing” is potentially part of what is at issue in this case.

          Accordingly, because Honda has not presented an adequate explanation as to why it did not present these facts earlier, the Court denies the motion for reconsideration.

V.       CONCLUSION AND ORDER

          The motion for reconsideration is denied.

Plaintiff Meraz is ordered to give notice of ruling. 

Dated:                                                              _______________________________

                                                                              MARGARET L. OLDENDORF

                                                                       JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT