Judge Ralph C. Hofer, Case Number: 23GDCV00808, Date: 2024-05-24 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiffs Adam J. Meyer and Rebecca D. Meyer allege that in June of 2020 plaintiffs purchased a 2020 Chrysler Pacifica, which was sold to plaintiffs with express warranties from defendant FCA US LLC (FCA) that the vehicle would be free from defects in materials, nonconformities, or workmanship during the applicable warranty period, and to the extent the vehicle had defects, FCA would repair the defects.

Plaintiffs allege that plaintiffs returned the vehicle to defendants for repairs under the warranties due to defects and nonconformities relating to the driver side daytime lamp, left side head lamp, seat heater, steering wheel, cooling seats heater and coolant control, touch screen dials, wiring, engine, and transmission.

Plaintiffs allege that plaintiffs delivered the vehicle to an authorized repair facility, defendant Glendale Dodge Chrysler Jeep (Glendale Dodge) to repair the nonconformities, but defendants have failed to make the vehicle conform to the applicable warranties, despite a reasonable number of attempts to do so.

Plaintiffs allege that plaintiffs are entitled to replacement of the vehicle or restitution of the amount actually paid or payable under the contract, at plaintiff’s option, plus prejudgment interest at the legal rate.

The complaint also alleges that defendant Glendale Dodge breached its duty to use ordinary skill and care with respect to the vehicle in accordance with industry standards, as Glendale Dodge failed to properly store, prepare, and repair the vehicle, proximately causing plaintiffs damages.

The complaint alleges three causes of action for Violation of the Song Beverly Act, for breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, and violation of Beverly Act section 1793.2, as well as a cause of action for negligent repair.

Here, the opposition was filed and served on May 16, 2024 for a May 24, 2024 hearing date. Nine court days before the hearing fell on May 13, 2024. The opposition was accordingly filed three court days late. This situation has been inconvenient for the court and the courtroom staff, and unfair to the moving parties who have been deprived of those court days within which to file timely replies. The court, in its discretion, could refuse to consider the untimely oppositions. However, the court will consider the oppositions, but defendant is cautioned that in the future the court may refuse to consider papers not filed in conformity with the statutes, rules and procedures governing this litigation.

Defendant FCA in opposition to the motions indicates that prior to the hearing of the motions, defendant served plaintiffs with verified responses in substantial compliance with the Code.

Plaintiff submits with the oppositions FCA US LLC’s Response to Plaintiffs’ Form Interrogatories, Set No. One, FCA US LLC’s Response to Plaintiffs’ Special Interrogatories, Set No. One, FCA US LLC’s Response to Plaintiffs’ Requests for Production of Documents to Defendant FCA US LLC, Set No. One, and FCA US LLC’s Response to Plaintiffs’ Requests for Admission to Defendant FCA US LLC, Set No. One. [Dao Decl., paras. 4, 5, Exs. A, B]. The responses are verified, and were served by electronic mail on May 16, 2024, prior to the hearing on the motions. [Id.]

“It is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction under Chapter 7 (commencing with section 2023.010) on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admissions necessitated this motion.”

With respect to interrogatories, under CCP § 2030.290(c), “The court shall impose a monetary sanction… against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a response to interrogatories, 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.” A similar provision applies to document demands. See CCP § 2031.300(c).

CCP § 2023.010 provides that misuse of the discovery process includes “(d) Failing to respond or to submit to an authorized method of discovery.” Where there has been such conduct, under CCP § 2023.030(a), “The court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct....If a monetary sanction is authorized” by the statute, “ the court shall impose that sanction unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that the other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.” CCP § 2023.030(a).

Under CRC Rule 3.1348(a): “The court may award sanctions under the Discovery Act in favor of a party who files a motion to compel discovery, even though no opposition to the motion was filed, or opposition to the motion was withdrawn, or the requested discovery was provided to the moving party after the motion was filed.”

The burden is on the party subject to sanctions to show substantial justification or injustice. Mattco Forge, Inc. v. Arthur Young & Co. (1990, 2nd Dist.) 223 Cal.App.3d 1429, 1436.

In this case, responding parties failed to timely respond to authorized methods of discovery and propounding parties have submitted evidence that they have incurred expenses as a result of the conduct. The oppositions indicate that the discovery responses were not timely served due to the calendaring error of defendant’s counsel’s office, and it is not clear why this admitted error should not fairly shift the expense of having to prepare the motions to defendant, who made the motions necessary. Sanctions will be awarded.

Plaintiffs request $2,760 for each of four motions. These appear high for motions of this nature, and which were largely cut and pasted from each other. In addition, the motions each request 4 hours at $450 per hour to review opposition, prepare replies and appear at the hearing, when since the motions have been rendered moot, any replies should be brief and addressed only to the issue of sanctions, and the time to appear at the hearing remotely should be minimal. The sanctions will be adjusted accordingly as follows per motion: 4.0 attorney hours for one motion totaling $1,800.00 in attorney fees at $450.00 per hour including a one-time charge of 1.0 hour to attend virtually the hearing. The other 3 motions command 3.0 hours attorney time for $1,350.00 for each of these 3 motions.

The Court in its discretion has reluctantly considered the untimely oppositions to the motions, filed three court days late, only six court days prior to the hearing. Defendant is cautioned that in the future the Court may refuse to consider pleadings not filed in conformity with the statutes, rules and procedures governing this litigation.

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Answers, Without Objections, to Form Interrogatories, Set One, is MOOT in light of the service of FCA US LLC’s Response to Plaintiffs’ Form Interrogatories, Set No. One on May 16, 2024, prior to the hearing on the motion.

Monetary sanctions requested by moving party: Utilizing a lodestar approach, and in view of the totality of the circumstances, the Court finds that the total and reasonable amount of attorney’s fees and costs incurred for the work performed in connection with the pending motion is $1,800.00 (4.0 hours @ $450/hour) [6 hours requested] plus $60 filing fee [Amount Requested $2,760], which sum is to be awarded in favor of plaintiffs Adam J. Meyer and Rebecca D. Meyer and against defendant FCA US LLC, payable within 30 days. CCP sections 2030.290(c), 2023.010(d), 2023.030(a), and CRC Rule 3.1348(a).

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Answers, Without Objections, to Special Interrogatories, Set One, is MOOT in light of the service of FCA US LLC’s Response to Plaintiffs’ Special Interrogatories, Set No. One on May 16, 2024, prior to the hearing on the motion.

Monetary sanctions requested by moving party: Utilizing a lodestar approach, and in view of the totality of the circumstances, the Court finds that the total and reasonable amount of attorney’s fees and costs incurred for the work performed in connection with the pending motion is $1,350.00 (3.0 hours @ $450/hour) [6 hours requested] plus $60 filing fee [Amount Requested $2,760], which sum is to be awarded in favor of plaintiffs Adam J. Meyer and Rebecca D. Meyer and against defendant FCA US LLC, payable within 30 days. CCP sections 2030.290(c), 2023.010(d), 2023.030(a), and CRC Rule 3.1348(a).

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Responses, Without Objections, to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One, is MOOT in light of the service of FCA US LLC’s Response to Plaintiffs’ Requests for Production of Documents to Defendant FCA US LLC, Set No. One on May 16, 2024, prior to the hearing on the motion.

Monetary sanctions requested by moving party: Utilizing a lodestar approach, and in view of the totality of the circumstances, the Court finds that the total and reasonable amount of attorney’s fees and costs incurred for the work performed in connection with the pending motion is $1,350.00 (3.0 hours @ $450/hour) [6 hours requested] plus $60 filing fee [Amount Requested $2,760], which sum is to be awarded in favor of plaintiffs Adam J. Meyer and Rebecca D. Meyer and against defendant FCA US LLC, payable within 30 days. CCP sections 2031.300(c), 2023.010(d), 2023.030(a), and CRC Rule 3.1348(a).

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Deem Requests for Admissions to FCA US LLC, Set One Admitted is DENIED in light of the service of FCA US LLC’s Response to Plaintiffs’ Requests for Admission to Defendant FCA US LLC, Set No. One, on May 16, 2024, prior to the hearing on the motion.

The Court finds, pursuant to CCP § 2033.280 (c) that defendant FCA US LLC has served proposed responses substantially complying with the provisions of CCP § 2033.220 prior to the hearing on this motion. However, mandatory monetary sanctions will be awarded pursuant to CCP section 2033.280 (c).

Monetary sanctions requested by moving party: Utilizing a lodestar approach, and in view of the totality of the circumstances, the Court finds that the total and reasonable amount of attorney’s fees and costs incurred for the work performed in connection with the pending motion is $1,350.00 (3.0 hours @ $450/hour) [6 hours requested] plus $60 filing fee [Amount Requested $2,760], which sum is to be awarded in favor of plaintiffs Adam J. Meyer and Rebecca D. Meyer and against defendant FCA US LLC, payable within 30 days. CCP sections 2033.280 (c), 2023.010(d), 2023.030(a), and CRC Rule 3.1348(a).

The parties are reminded that discovery in this matter is governed by this Court’s Addendum to Case Management Conference Order (Song-Beverly Litigation) (Order), signed and entered by the Court on January 24, 2023 as revised, signed and entered on January 11, 2024, available on the Los Angeles Superior Court website in connection with this Department, Glendale Courthouse, Department D. The parties are also directed to the Notice to All Counsel Re: Lemon Law Cases for Department D, entitled Customary Rulings Re Document Requests (Song Beverly Litigation) (Notice), also available on the referenced website. That Notice indicates what the Court will usually order when faced with a discovery dispute.

The parties are advised that in connection with any further discovery disputes, the parties are expected to fully meet and confer in good faith, taking into consideration the Order and Notice, and that any further motions before this court, if necessary, must be accompanied by appropriate separate statements, which include any subject request, the current response, and any language from the Order and Notice applicable to the particular request.

Please make arrangement in advance if you wish to appear via LACourtConnect by visiting www.lacourt.org to schedule a remote appearance. Please note that LACourtConnect offers free audio and video appearances. However, ADVANCE REGISTRATION IS REQUIRED.

If no appearance is set up through LACourtConnect, or no appearance is otherwise made, then the Court will assume the parties are submitting on the tentative.