Judge: Melvin D. Sandvig, Case: 23CHCV00909, Date: 2024-10-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23CHCV00909    Hearing Date: October 21, 2024    Dept: F47

Dept. F47

Date: 10/21/24

Case #23CHCV00909

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES

(Requests for Admissions, Set 1)

Motion filed on 5/24/24.

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiffs Arelis Lopez and Gene Lopez

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant Kia America, Inc.

NOTICE: ok

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order compelling Defendant Kia America, Inc. to provide further responses to Plaintiffs’ Requests for Admissions, Set 1.  Additionally, Plaintiffs request an order imposing sanctions against Defendant and its attorneys of record, Lehrman, Villegas, Chinery & Douglas, LLP, in the amount of $2,310.00.

RULING: The motion is granted as set forth below. 

SUMMARY OF FACTS & PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This action arises out of Plaintiffs Arelis Lopez and Gene Lopez’s (Plaintiffs) purchase of a 2019 Kia Forte (the Vehicle) manufactured and/or distributed and warranted by Defendant Kia America, Inc. (Defendant).  Plaintiffs contend that the Vehicle was/is defective and unsafe as it has recurring and unpredictable transmission, electrical and other defects.  Plaintiffs allege that despite frequent repair visits and Defendant’s inability to fix the problems after a reasonable number of attempts, Defendant failed to replace the Vehicle in accordance with the Song-Beverly Act.

On 3/30/23, Plaintiffs filed this action against Defendant for: (1) Violation of Song-Beverly Act – Breach of Express Warranty, (2) Violation of Song-Beverly Act – Civil Code 1793.2.  On 5/8/23, Defendant answered the complaint.

On 12/28/23, Plaintiffs served Defendant with Requests for Admissions, Set 1.  (Thomas Decl., Ex.A).  Defendant served verified responses on 2/13/24.  (Thomas Decl., Ex.B).  In response to Requests for Admissions (RFAs) 3, 5, 11, 24, 26 and 34 (incorrectly labeled 35 in Plaintiffs’ RFAs) and 39-41, Defendant asserted only objections.  Id.  On 4/1/24, Plaintiffs sent a meet and confer letter regarding the deficiencies in certain of the responses.  (Thomas Decl., Ex.C).  Defendant responded indicating that it would be supplementing its responses to RFAs 3, 5, 11, 24, 26, 34 and 39-41.  On 4/30/24, Defendant agreed to extend the deadline for a motion to compel further responses to 5/24/24.  (Thomas Decl., Ex.E).  On 5/13/24, Plaintiffs sent an email regarding the overdue supplemental responses to which Defendant did not respond.  (Thomas Decl., Ex.F). 

On 5/24/24, Plaintiffs filed and served the instant motion seeking an order compelling Defendant  to provide further responses to Plaintiffs’ Requests for Admissions, Set 1.  Additionally, Plaintiffs request an order imposing sanctions against Defendant and its attorneys of record, Lehrman, Villegas, Chinery & Douglas, LLP, in the amount of $2,310.00.  Defendant has opposed the motion and Plaintiffs have filed a reply to the opposition. 

ANALYSIS

The  opposition contends that by the time of the hearing on the motion, Defendant will have provided supplemental responses to RFAs 3, 5, 11, 24, 26, 34 (incorrectly labeled as 35), and 39-41 rendering the motion moot.  (See Opposition, p.2:2-7).  From the declaration submitted in support of the opposition, it is not clear if Defendant is contending that supplemental responses to the subject RFAs have already been served or will be served.  (See Chang Decl. ¶¶3-4).  The opposition goes on to argue that sanctions are not warranted because there was never any misuse/abuse of the discovery process by Defendant. 

The reply to the opposition states that as of the time of the filing of the reply on 10/14/24, Defendant has not provided proper further responses to the subject RFAs. 

CONCLUSION

The motion is granted.

The opposition essentially concedes that further responses to RFAs 3, 5, 11, 24, 26, 34 (incorrectly labeled as 35), and 39-41 are warranted as Defendant indicates that such have been or will be provided before the hearing.  Since Defendant has not provided any evidence that proper, verified further responses to the subject RFAs have been served and has failed to justify its objections, Defendant is ordered to provide further responses to RFAs 3, 5, 11, 24, 26, 34 (incorrectly labeled as 35), and 39-41 within 30 days.

The Court further finds that Plaintiffs are entitled to an award of sanctions against Defendant and its attorneys of record, Lehrman, Villegas, Chinery & Douglas, LLP, in the amount of $2,310.00 (2 hours to prepare motion + 2 hours to review opposition and draft reply +1 hour to prepare for and appear at hearing multiplied by $450/hour + $60 filing fee), for their failure to comply with their discovery obligations.  (See Thomas Decl. ¶¶11-23).  Defendant fails to provide an adequate explanation as to why proper responses to the discovery requests have not been provided in the more than 9 months since the discovery requests were served on Defendant.  Sanctions are payable within 30 days.