Judge: Michael Shultz, Case: 24STCV18059, Date: 2025-04-17 Tentative Ruling

DEPARTMENT 40 - MICHAEL J. SHULTZ  - LAW AND MOTION RULINGS
The Court issues tentative rulings on certain motions.The tentative ruling will not become the final ruling until the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(a)(2)]. If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance, all counsel must agree and choose which counsel will give notice. That counsel must 1) email Dept 40 by 8:30 a.m. on the day of the hearing (smcdept40@lacourt.org) with a copy to the other party(ies) and state that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling, and 2) serve notice of the ruling on all parties. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no email is necessary and all parties should appear at the hearing in person or by Court Call. 

Case Number: 24STCV18059    Hearing Date: April 17, 2025    Dept: 40

24STCV18059 Francelia Pascascio v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc..

Thursday, April 17, 2025.

[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL INSPECTION AND FOR SANCTIONS

                                                I.            BACKGROUND

This action arises from Defendant’s alleged violations of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (“SBA”). On March 19, 2025, Defendant filed the instant motion to compel production of Plaintiff’s vehicle for inspection and for an award of monetary sanctions, declaration of Ariane Sandanga, and proposed order. No opposition has been filed.

Defendant served a Demand for Vehicle Inspection to be conducted on March 6, 2025. Defendant received no objections to Defendant's Demand for Vehicle Inspection. On March 5, 2025, the day before the vehicle inspection, Defendant sent an email to ask if Plaintiff was going to produce the vehicle for the vehicle inspection. Defendant’s counsel did not receive a response from Plaintiff’s counsel.

2. DISCUSSION

The court should compel Plaintiff to produce the Subject Vehicle for inspection within two (2) weeks of the issuance of an Order granting this instant Motion. 

                                               III.            DISCUSSION

A party may demand that any other party produce and permit the party making the demand, or someone acting on the demanding party’s behalf, to inspect and to photograph, test, or sample any tangible things that are in the possession, custody, or control of the party on whom the demand is made.¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.010, subd. (c).) If a party fails to permit an inspection, the requesting party may move for an order compelling compliance. (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.300 subd. (b).)  

Under California Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300 subd. (c) “the court shall impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2023.010) against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to a demand for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” Chapter 7 provides that sanctions may be imposed for misuse of discovery process. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030, subd. (a).) Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery constitutes a misuse of the discovery process. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010, subd. (d).) Here, Defendant served a Demand for Vehicle Inspection to be conducted on March 6, 2025. (Sadanaga Decl. ¶ 2; Ex. A.) Defendant received no objections to Defendant's Demand for Vehicle Inspection. (Sadanaga Decl. ¶ 3.) On March 5, 2025, the day before the vehicle inspection, Defendant sent an email to ask if Plaintiff was going to produce the vehicle for the vehicle inspection. (Id.; Ex. B.) Defendant’s counsel did not receive a response from Plaintiff’s counsel. (Id.)  On February 11, 2025, Defendant requested an Informal Discovery Conference, which was heard on March 10, 2025. (Sadanaga Decl. ¶ 5, Ex. C.) At the hearing, the Court informed Defendant’s counsel that if Defendant files a Motion to Compel, the Court. . .stated “[t]he Defendant's Motion to Compel will have to make mention of the Order to Show Cause.” (Minute Order March 10, 2025.) The Court finds that the motion mentions the Order to Show Cause. (Sadanaga Decl. ¶ 7, Ex. E.)

Defendant seeks monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,405.00 (3.5 hours x $350 hourly rate plus three $60 filing fees for an IDC request, IDC statement and this motion) against Plaintiff and/or her counsel of record, Downtown L.A. Law Group. (Sadanaga Decl. ¶ 10.) Plaintiff has failed to provide a substantial justification for its failure to respond to Defendant’s discovery request. Moreover, Plaintiff failed to attend the Informal Discovery Conference to address this matter. The Court finds the fees reasonable and grants Defendant’s request for sanctions in the amount of $1,405.00.

                                                   IV.            CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s Motion to Compel Inspection is GRANTED. Sanctions of $1,405.00 are imposed against Plaintiff and counsel, jointly and severally, and payable to Defendant within 30 days.