Judge: Mel Red Recana, Case: 23STCV10024, Date: 2024-09-05 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV10024 Hearing Date: September 5, 2024 Dept: 45
|
JORDYN N. CROSBY; Plaintiff, vs. WESTCOASTAUTOAUCTION,
INC.; Defendant(s). |
Case No.:
23STCV10024
DEPARTMENT 45 [TENTATIVE] ORDER Action
Filed: 05/02/23 Trial Date: 03/24/25 |
Hearing date: September 5, 2024
Moving
Party: Plaintiff Jordyn N.
Crosby
Responding
Party: Defendant WestCoastAutoAuction,
Inc.
(1)
Motion to Compel
Further Responses to Request for Admissions, Set One
(2)
Motion to Compel
Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One
The court has considered the
moving, opposition, and reply papers.
The court DENIES
the Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One in its entirety.
The court GRANTS
IN PART and DENIES IN PART the Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Admissions, Set One as follows. The request to compel further response Plaintiff Jordyn N. Crosby’s Request for Admissions, Set One, Nos. 3 and
15 is DENIED as moot. The request to compel further response to Request for
Admissions, Set One, Nos. 1, 2, 11, 14, 22, 23, and 25 is GRANTED. Defendant WestCoastAutoAuction,
Inc. is ordered to serve further
responses to those requests for admissions within 30 days of this ruling.
Background
On May 2, 2023, plaintiff Jordyn N.
Crosby (“Plaintiff”) filed this action.
On June 30, 2023, Plaintiff filed the
operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) against WestCoastAutoAuction, Inc
(“Defendant”) and Does 1 through 75, asserting causes of action for (1)
violations of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”), (2) intentional
misrepresentation, (3) concealment, (4) negligent misrepresentation, (5) breach
of warranty of title, (6) violations of Vehicle Code section 5753, (7)
violations of the Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”), and (8) violations of Vehicle
Code section 11711. The FAC alleges the following, among other things. On
December 26, 2022, Plaintiff purchased a 2010 Chevrolet Camaro LT from
Defendant, a car dealership. (FAC, ¶¶ 1, 2, 6.) At the time of purchase,
Defendant represented that it would deliver registration and title of the vehicle
to Plaintiff. (FAC, ¶ 7.) Therefore, Plaintiff paid Defendant $10,000 and left
with the vehicle. (FAC, ¶ 8.) However, Defendant has never given Plaintiff
registration or title for the vehicle. (FAC, ¶¶ 9, 10.)
On November 13, 2023, Plaintiff
substituted Merchants Bonding Company for the defendant sued fictitiously as
Doe 1.
On December 1, 2023, Plaintiff
dismissed Merchants Bonding Company.
On June 6, 2024, Plaintiff filed the
instant motions to compel Defendant’s further responses to her Request for
Admissions, Set One (“RFA Motion”), and Request for Production of Documents, Set
One (“RPD Motion”).
On July 8, 2024, Defendant filed its
oppositions to the motions.
On July 12, 2024, Defendant filed its
reply papers.
Jury trial is set for March 24,
2025.
Motion to Compel
Further Responses to Requests for Admission
“A party to a
civil action may propound a written request that another party ‘admit the
genuineness of specified documents, or the truth of specified matters of fact,
opinion relating to fact, or application of law to fact.’ (Code Civ. Proc., §
2033.010; [citation].)” (City of Glendale v. Marcus Cable Associates, LLC
(2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 344, 351–352.)
“On receipt of a
response to requests for admissions, the party requesting admissions may move
for an order compelling a further response if that party deems that either or
both of the following apply: ¶ (1) An answer to a particular request is evasive
or incomplete. ¶ (2) An objection to a particular request is without merit or
too general.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.290, subd. (a).)
RFA Motion Timeliness
A motion to compel further responses to
requests for admission must be brought within 45 days of service of the
verified response, supplemental verified response, or on a date to which the
propounding and responding parties have agreed to in writing; otherwise, the
propounding party waives the right to compel further responses. (Code Civ.
Proc., § 2033.290, subd. (c).)
The court finds the RFA Motion timely.
Plaintiff’s counsel testifies that Defendant served the supplemental responses
at issue on April 12, 2024. (“Declaration of Brianna A. Means in Support of MTC
re RFA 1,” filed on June 6, 2024 (“Means RFA Decl.”), ¶ 7.) However, Defendant agreed to extend the motion to compel
deadline to June 5, 2024. (Means RFA Decl., ¶ 9.) Even though Plaintiff filed the RFA Motion on June 6, 2024, a day
after the parties’ agreed upon deadline, the motion is timely because the
responses were served electronically and Code of Civil Procedure section
1010.6, subdivision (a)(4)(B), extends by two court days any duty to do any act
after service of a document by electronic means. (See Compendium of Exhibits in Support of RFA Motion, filed June 6, 2024,
Exhibit 6 – a copy of the supplemental responses, Proof of Service page
[showing the responses were served electronically on April 12, 2024].)
RFA Motion Meet and Confer
“A motion [to compel further responses to
requests for admission] shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration
under Section 2016.040.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.290, subd. (b)(1).) Section
2016.040 states: “A meet and confer declaration in support of a motion shall
state facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an informal
resolution of each issue presented by the motion.”
Here, Plaintiff’s counsel testifies that
Defendant did not respond to Plaintiff’s meet and confer letter dated April 30,
2024. (Means RFA Decl., ¶ 10.)
However, in
support of the opposition, defense counsel testifies that on May 6, 2024, a
month before Plaintiff filed this motion, Defendant requested one (1) week to
respond to the meet and confer letter, and then on May 14, 2024, responded to
Plaintiff’s meet and confer letter, but Plaintiff’s counsel never responded to
Defendant’s response. (Declaration of Randell Y. Hong, filed July 8, 2024, ¶¶
4-5.)
In her reply, Plaintiff argues that
regardless of whether she responded to defense counsel’s letter dated May 14,
2024, she met her burden of attempting to informally resolve the issue through
the first and second meet and confer letter. (Reply, p. 2:6-11.) In addition,
that further meet and confer would have been in vain since defense counsel had
stated that Defendant will not supplement some RFAs. (Reply, p. 2:12-15.)
The court finds Plaintiff has
satisfied the meet and confer requirement and Defendant’s argument that the
meet and confer process was insufficient, even if true, is not grounds for
denying the motion.
RFA Motion Separate Statement
Plaintiff has satisfied the separate
statement requirement. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.290, subd. (b)(2) [requiring
separate statements for motions to compel further responses to admissions]; Cal.
Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(a)(1) [same]; Separate Statement in support of RFA
Motion, filed on June 6, 2024 (“RFA SS”).)
Request to Compel
Further Responses to RFAs
Plaintiff was initially moving to
compel further responses to RFA Nos., 1-3, 11, 14-15, 22-23, and 25.
However, in her reply, Plaintiff states
that she is now only seeking to compel further responses to RFA Nos. 1, 2, 11,
14, 22, 23, and 25. (Reply, p. 6:3-4.)
Defendant argues in its opposition
that it provided code-compliant responses to those RFAs.
The following
rules apply to responses to requests for admission. “Each answer in a response to requests for admission shall be as complete
and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding
party permits.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.220, subd. (a).) Specifically, “[e]ach
answer shall: ¶ (1) Admit so much of the matter involved in the request as is
true, either as expressed in the request itself or as reasonably and clearly
qualified by the responding party. ¶ (2) Deny so much of the matter involved in
the request as is untrue. ¶ (3) Specify so much of the matter involved in the
request as to the truth of which the responding party lacks sufficient
information or knowledge.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.220, subd. (b).) “If a
responding party gives lack of information or knowledge as a reason for a
failure to admit all or part of a request for admission, that party shall state
in the answer that a reasonable inquiry concerning the matter in the particular
request has been made, and that the information known or readily obtainable is
insufficient to enable that party to admit the matter.” (Code Civ. Proc., §
2033.220, subd. (c).)
With those rules
in mind, the court rules on the request to compel further responses as follows.
RFA
No. 1 asked Defendant to admit that “[o]n May 2, 2023,
Plaintiff sent [Defendant] a copy of the letter attached [to the RFAs] as
Exhibit 1 via certified mail, return receipt requested, at the place where it
sold her the 2010 Chevrolet Camaro LT with VIN: 2G1FC1EV4A9218745.” (RFA SS, p.
1:23-26.)
Defendant
served the following supplemental response to RFA No. 1: “Responding Party admits
to the extent that it received a copy of Exhibit 1 in the mail on or about May
2023 at its offices where it sold Plaintiff the vehicle; however, after a
reasonable inquiry concerning the matter in this request has been made and the
information known or readily obtainable is insufficient to enable Responding
Party to admit the matter as it relates to the exact date or whether it was via
certified mail, return receipt requested.” (RFA SS, p. 1:1-6 [emphasis added].)
As
stated above, “[e]ach answer in a response to requests for admission shall be
as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the
responding party permits.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.220, subd. (a).)
Here,
the court agrees with Plaintiff that Defendant’s answer is not straightforward.
Defendant states it admits “to the extent it received,” which is a vague and
evasive response because it is unclear whether the Defendant is admitting to
having received the document referred to in RFA No. 1.
Therefore,
the request to compel further response to RFA
No. 1 is GRANTED.
RFA No. 2 asked Defendant
to admit it “received a copy of the letter attached hereto as Exhibit 1 no
later than May 5, 2023, at the place where it sold Plaintiff the 2010 Chevrolet
Camaro LT with VIN: 2G1FC1EV4A9218745.” (RFA SS, p. 2:16-19.)
Similar to its response to RFA No.
1, Defendant responded to RFA No. 2, stating that it “admits to the extent it
received a copy of Exhibit 1 in the mail on or about May 2023 at its offices
where it sold Plaintiff the vehicle; however, after a reasonable inquiry
concerning the matter in this request has been made and the information known
or readily obtainable is insufficient to enable Responding Party to admit the
matter as it relates to the exact date.” (RFA SS, p. 2:22-26.)
The request to compel further response to RFA No. 2 is GRANTED for
the same reason the court has granted the request to compel further response to
No. 1.
RFA No. 11 asked Defendant
to admit that “[a]t the time of the sale of the 2010 Chevrolet Camaro LT with
VIN: 2G1FC1EV4A9218745, WestCoastAutoAuction, Inc., represented to Plaintiff
that it would deliver registration and title of the vehicle to her.” (RFA SS,
p. 3:4-7.)
Defendant again used “admits to the
extent” language in its response to RFA No. 11. (RFA SS, p. 3:13-16 [“Responding
Party admits to the extent that it represented that the paperwork would be
prepared and sent to the DMV for the vehicle registration and title; however,
Responding Party denies it represented to Plaintiff that it would personally
deliver new title of the vehicle to her”].)
The request to compel further response to RFA No. 11 is GRANTED for
the same reason the court has granted the request to compel further responses
to the RFAs discussed above.
RFA No. 14 asks Defendant to
admit it “has not provided Plaintiff any refunds related to her purchase of the
2010 Chevrolet Camaro LT with VIN: 2G1FC1EV4A9218745 since she purchased the
vehicle.” (RFA SS, p. 3:21-23.)
Defendant used “admits to the extent” and
“denies to the extent” language in its response to RFA No. 14. (RFA SS, pp.
3:26-4:2 [“Responding Party admits to the extent that it has not paid any money
related to the vehicle back to Plaintiff; however, Responding Party denies to
the extent that it made attempts to reach out to Plaintiff and her counsel by
phone to discuss providing refunds to Plaintiff of which Plaintiff nor her
counsel would discuss”].)
The request to
compel further response to RFA No. 14 is
GRANTED for the same reason the court has granted the
request to compel further responses to the RFAs discussed above.
RFA No 22 asks
Defendant to admit it “did not deliver title for the 2010 Chevrolet Camaro LT
with VIN: 2G1FC1EV4A9218745 to Plaintiff within fifteen business days of
December 26, 2022.” (RFA SS, p. 4:7-9.)
Defendant again used “admits to the
extent” language in its response to RFA No. 22. (RFA SS, p. 4:12-15 [“Responding
Party admits to the extent that it did not personally deliver title for the
vehicle to Plaintiff within fifteen business days; however, Responding Party
denies to the extent that it was not required to as title can only come from
the California DMV”].)
The request to
compel further response to RFA No. 22 is
GRANTED for the same reason the court has granted the
request to compel further responses to the RFAs discussed above.
RFA No. 23 asked Defendant
to admit that “[a]s of May 2, 2023, [it] had not paid any money to Plaintiff
pursuant to Vehicle Code § 5753(e).” (RFA SS, p. 4:20-22.)
Defendant again used “admits to the
extent” language in its response to RFA No. 23. (RFA SS, p. 4:25-28 [“Responding
Party admits to the extent that it has not paid any money to Plaintiff as of
May 2, 2023; however, Responding Party denies to the extent that Vehicle Code §
5753 requires it to pay money to Plaintiff”].)
The request to
compel further response to RFA No. 23 is
GRANTED for the same reason the court has granted the
request to compel further responses to the RFAs discussed above.
Finally, RFA No. 25 asked
Defendant to admit that it “did not pay Plaintiff any money pursuant to Vehicle
Code § 5753(e) within 60 days of its receipt of the Complaint in this action.”
(RFA SS, p. 5:5-7.)
Defendant again used “admits to the
extent” language in its response to RFA No. 25. (RFA SS, p. 4:25-28 [“Responding
Party admits to the extent that it has not paid any money to Plaintiff as of
May 2, 2023; however, Responding Party denies to the extent that Vehicle Code §
5753 requires it to pay money to Plaintiff”].)
The request to
compel further response to RFA No. 25 is
GRANTED for the same reason the court has granted the
request to compel further responses to the RFAs discussed above.
Plaintiff has not requested
sanctions in connection with the RFA Motion.
For those reasons, the RFA Motion
is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows. The request to compel
further response Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions, Set One, Nos. 3 and 15 is
DENIED as moot. The request to compel further response to Plaintiff’s Request
for Admissions, Set One, Nos. 1, 2, 11, 14, 22, 23, and 25 is GRANTED.
Defendant is ordered to serve further responses to those requests for
admissions within 30 days of this ruling.
Motion
to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production
“On receipt of a response to a demand for
inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, the demanding party may move for an
order compelling further response to the demand if the demanding party deems
that any of the following apply: ¶ (1) A statement of compliance with the
demand is incomplete. ¶ (2) A representation of inability to comply is
inadequate, incomplete, or evasive. ¶ (3) An objection in the response is
without merit or too general.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (a).)
Good
cause showing must be made before production may be compelled. (Code Civ.
Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (b)(1) [providing that a motion to compel further
requests for production of documents must “set forth specific facts showing
good cause justifying the discovery sought by the demand”]; Williams v.
Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531, 550 [“demands for inspection, copying,
testing, or sampling … require a good cause showing before production may be
compelled”].)
“Good
cause” has been defined “as requiring that the party [1] produce specific facts
justifying discovery and [2] that the inquiry be relevant to the subject matter
of the action or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence.” (Vinson v. Superior Court (1987) 43 Cal.3d 833, 840.)
RPD Motion Timeliness
and Meet and Confer
The
court finds that Plaintiff has satisfied the timeliness and meet and confer requirements
for the same reasons it found Plaintiff had done so for the RFA Motion. (Code
Civ. Proc., §§ 2031.310,
subd. (c)
[“Unless notice of this motion is given within 45 days
of the service of the verified response, or any supplemental verified response,
or on or before any specific later date to which the demanding party and the
responding party have agreed in writing, the demanding party waives any right
to compel a further response to the demand”]; 2031.310, subd. (b)(2) [stating that the RPD Motion must be accompanied
by a meet and confer declaration].)
RPD Motion Separate Statement
Plaintiff has
filed a separate statement as required for the RPD Motion. (Cal. Rules of
Court, rule 3.1345(a)(3); Separate Statement in support of
RPD Motion, filed on June 6, 2024 (“RPD SS”).)
Request
to Compel Further Response to RPDs
Plaintiff
was initially moving to compel further responses to RPD Nos. 8-9 and 21-25.
However, in her reply, Plaintiff
states that she is now seeking compel further responses to only RPD Nos. 8, 9,
21, and 25. (Reply in support of the RPD Motion, p. 5:3-6.)
RPD No. 8 asked
Defendant to produce “All WRITINGS evidencing or RELATING to YOUR
advertisements for the VEHICLE, including the advertisements and any videos or
photographs of the VEHICLE.” (RPD SS, p. 2:1-3.)
Defendant objected to RPD No. 8,
arguing, that it is vague, ambiguous, and calls for information equally
available to both parties. (RPD SS, p. 2:17-20.)
The court finds those objections
unpersuasive.
However, without waiving those objections,
Defendant also responded to RPD No. 8 as follows: “The Responding Party has,
after a diligent search and a reasonable inquiry has been made in an effort to
comply with Plaintiff’s demand, Responding Party responds as follows: If such documents
did exist at one time the documents have been lost or misplaced. However,
discovery is on-going and the Responding Party reserves the right to supplement
this answer.” (RPD SS, p. 2:21-24.)
The court finds that alternate
response code compliant contrary to Plaintiff’s arguments. (See Code Civ.
Proc., § 2031.230 [“A representation of inability to comply with the particular
demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling shall affirm that a
diligent search and a reasonable inquiry has been made in an effort to comply
with that demand. This statement shall also specify whether the inability to
comply is because the particular item or category has never existed, has been
destroyed, has been lost, misplaced, or stolen, or has never been, or is no
longer, in the possession, custody, or control of the responding party”].)
Therefore, the request to compel
further response to RPD No. 8 is DENIED.
RPD No. 9 asked Defendant
to produce the following: “All WRITINGS RELATED to YOUR payment of fees to the
California Department of Motor Vehicles in connection with YOUR sale of the
VEHICLE to Plaintiff, including any refund.” (RPD SS, p. 4:23-24.)
Defendant responded to RPD No. 9 as
follows. “Without waiving [its] objections, Responding Party answers as
follows: The Responding Party has, after a diligent search and a reasonable
inquiry has been made in an effort to comply with Plaintiff’s demand,
Responding Party responds as follows: The documents never existed or has never
been in the possession, custody, or control of the Responding Party. However, discovery
is on-going and the Responding Party reserves the right to supplement this
answer.” (RPD SS, p. 5:7-11.)
The court finds Defendant’s response to
RPD No. 9 was code compliant for the same reasons as No. 8 above.
Therefore, the request to compel
further response to RPD No. 9 is DENIED.
RPD No. 21 asked Defendant
to produce the following: “The envelope in which the correspondence dated May
2, 2023, YOU received from Auto Fraud Legal Center LLP, was enclosed.” (RPD SS,
p. 6:23-25.)
Defendant responded to RPD No. 21 as
follows: “Without waiving the foregoing objections, Responding Party answers as
follows: ¶ The Responding Party has, after a diligent search and a reasonable
inquiry has been made in an effort to comply with Plaintiff’s demand,
Responding Party responds as follows: If such documents did exist at one time,
either the documents have been destroyed or lost. However, discovery is
on-going and the Responding Party reserves the right to supplement this answer.”
(RPD SS, p. 7:6-10.)
The court finds Defendant’s response to
RPD No. 21 was code compliant for the same reasons as the other RPDs above.
Therefore, the request to compel
further response to RPD No. 21 is DENIED.
Lastly, RPD No. 25 asked
Defendant to produce the following: “All other WRITINGS RELATED to the VEHICLE
that were not responsive to the above requests.” (RPD SS, p. 8:19-21.)
The court agrees with Defendant that RPD
No. 25 overly broad and fails to describe with specificity the documents
Plaintiff is seeking, requiring Defendant to have to guess which documents
would be responsive to that request. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.030, subd. (c)(1).)
Therefore, the request to compel
further response to RPD No. 25 is DENIED.
Plaintiff does not seek sanctions
with regard to the RPD Motion.
For the reasons set forth above, the
RPD Motion is DENIED in its entirety.
It
is so ordered.
Dated:
September 05, 2024
_______________________
MEL RED RECANA
Judge of the
Superior Court