Judge: Michael Shultz, Case: 22CMCV00343, Date: 2024-02-01 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22CMCV00343 Hearing Date: February 1, 2024 Dept: A
22CMCV00343
Cesar Enriquez Cayax et al. v. Felix Chevrolet, LP; General Motors, LLC.
[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL GENERAL MOTORS, LLC’S COMPLIANCE WITH THE COURT'S
ORDER OF NOVEMBER 16, 2023, AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS
The
complaint alleges that Defendant, General Motors, LLC, (“GM”) issued an express
warranty in connection with Plaintiffs’ purchase of a 2021 Chevrolet Silverado
made and distributed by GM. The vehicle suffered from various defects that GM failed
to repair within a reasonable number of attempts in violation of the
Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. Plaintiffs allege a claim for negligent
maintenance against Defendant, Felix Chevrolet LP.
Plaintiffs
argue that on November 16, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion to compel
GM to produce its person most qualified (“PMQ”) within 10 days. Plaintiffs
contend that GM initially did not provide any dates or otherwise communicate
with Plaintiffs. Subsequently on December 26, 2023, defense counsel offered a
single time slot for the deposition of the PMQ in 13 different cases including
this one. GM further limited topics of inquiry. The Court should compel
compliance and require GM to pay sanctions.
In
opposition, GM contends it offered Plaintiffs two dates for the deposition to
take place on December 7, 2023, and on January 23, 2024. Plaintiffs rejected
both dates. GM acknowledges its opposition was untimely filed because the
handling attorney changed to Alexandria O. Pappas on January 22, 2024.
In
reply, Plaintiffs requests that the Court not consider the late opposition, or
alternatively, consider Plaintiffs' counsel’s supplemental declaration to
address the false statements made by defense counsel.
III. DISCUSSION
The Court exercises its discretion to
consider late papers in favor of the strong policy favoring disposition of the
case on the merits. (Kapitanski
v. Von’s (1983) 146 Cal.App.3d 29, 32, [“Judges are well aware of the
unnecessary burdens placed on courts and counsel when strict compliance with
local procedural rules results in the expenditure of unnecessary time and money
for the preparation of later section 473 motions.”].) Plaintiffs have not shown
any prejudice resulting from the delay. The Court has considered Plaintiffs’
reply and the supplemental declaration of Phil Thomas.
The Court can impose
sanctions, including issue, evidentiary or terminating sanction if a party or
party-affiliated deponent fails to obey an order compelling attendance,
testimony, and production. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450.) In lieu of or in addition to, the Court can
impose monetary sanctions.
On November 16, 2023, the Court ordered
GM to produce a witness or witnesses qualified to testify “on all topics of
inquiry” identified in Plaintiffs’ deposition notice and to comply with the
document request within 10 days “without limitation or condition.” (Thomas Decl., Ex. A.) On
December 26, 2023, Plaintiffs' counsel sent an email to defense counsel
advising that Plaintiffs would file a motion to compel compliance as GM did not
produce a witness or otherwise communicate with Plaintiffs' counsel since the
hearing. (Thomas Decl., Ex. B.)
Instead of offering a date in this
particular case, defense counsel, Arash Yaraghchian, subsequently offered January
16, 2024, in 13 different cases, including this case, advising that GM would
conduct two or three PMQs on that date. GM ignored the 10-day deadline and
“offered” a date in a manner that caused “unwarranted annoyance” or “undue burden
and expense” as it was not realistic for Plaintiffs to compete with other
counsel in 12 other cases. The “proposal” defied the Court’s order.
Defense counsel has not shown substantial
justification for ostensibly shifting the burden on Plaintiffs’ counsel to
compete with other counsel for the January 16, date. (Thomas Decl., Ex. D.)
Additionally and contrary to the Court’s order, GM unilaterally limited categories
of inquiry to two categories. (Id.) Defense counsel does not
substantiate the claim that GM offered to produce witnesses on December 7, 2023,
or January 5, 2024. (Pappas Decl., ¶ 7.) In any event 10 days after the
November 16 hearing was November 27, 2023, as the 10th day was a
Sunday.
IV. CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the
Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion. Defendant is ordered to comply with the
Court’s November 16, 2023, order within 10 days. The Court imposes monetary
sanctions of $1,860 (which includes a $60 filing fee) against Defendant,
General Motors, LLC, and its counsel Erskine Law Group, jointly and severally, and
payable to Plaintiffs’ counsel within 10 days. The Court finds that $450 per
hour is reasonable and four hours to prepare this motion, the reply, and to
appear at the hearing is reasonable.