Judge Ronald F. Frank, Case Number: 24TRCV00191, Date: 2025-02-18 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Ronald F. Frank, Case: 24TRCV00191, Date: 2025-02-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24TRCV00191 Hearing Date: February 18, 2025 Dept: 8

Tentative Ruling¿

¿¿

HEARING DATE: February 18, 2025

¿¿

CASE NUMBER: 24TRCV00191

¿¿

CASE NAME: Antonio Avila v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., et al.

¿¿

MOVING PARTY: (1) Defendant, American Honda Motor Co., Inc.

(2) Defendant, American Honda Motor Co., Inc.

¿¿

RESPONDING PARTY: (1) Plaintiff, Antonia Avila (No Opposition)

(2) Plaintiff, Antonia Avila (No Opposition)

TRIAL DATE: September 18, 2025

¿¿

MOTION:¿ (1) Motion to Compel Deposition of Plaintiff and Request for Production of Documents

(2) Request for Monetary Sanctions

(3) Motion to Compel the Vehicle Inspection

Tentative Rulings: (1) GRANTED. If the parties do not agree on a date and time for the Plaintiff’s deposition during the hearing, the Court will order them

(2) GRANTED in the amount of $560, payable by Plaintiff’s and/or plaintiff’s counsel by March 18, 2025

(3) GRANTED. As with the deposition, if the parties do not agree on a date, time and place for the VI, the Court will order them

¿¿

I. BACKGROUND¿¿

¿¿

A. Factual¿¿

On January 21, 2024, Plaintiff, Antonio Avila (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendant, American Honda Motor Co. Inc. (“AHM”), and DOES 1 through 10. The complaint alleges causes of action for: (1) Violation of Civil Code section 1793.2(d); (2) Violation of Civil Code section 1793.2(b); (3) Violation of Civil Code section 1793.2(a)(3); (4) Breach of the Implied Warranty of Merchantability – Civil Code §§ 1791.1; 1794; 1795.5.

On July 22, 2024, American Honda Motor Co. Inc. (“AHM”) served a notice for the deposition of Plaintiff Antonia Avila for August 28, 2024. On July 23, 2024, AHM served an amended notice for the deposition of Plaintiff Antonia Avila for August 28, 2024. Then, on November 19, 2024, AHM met and conferred and requested dates for the deposition of Plaintiff with a drop-dead date of November 26, 2024, however AHM stated the request was ignored. To date, AHM asserts that Plaintiff has not provided alternative dates. As such, AHM has filed this Motion to Compel the Deposition of Plaintiff.

On July 22, 2024, Defense counsel also sent a vehicle inspection to occur on September 11, 2024. On September 9, 2024, Plaintiff’s counsel sent an objection notice to the notice of vehicle inspection stating that vehicle inspection would not be occurring on that date and concluded its objection with “Plaintiff will meet and confer with Defendant to reschedule the inspection on a date and time which is mutually agreeable, with sufficient notice.” On November 19, 2024, AHM states it met and conferred again by requesting dates for the vehicle inspection with a drop-dead date of November 26, 2024, but AHM states the request was ignored. Thus, AHM has brought this Motion to Compel the vehicle inspection of the subject vehicle.

B. Procedural¿¿

On January 8, 2025, AHM filed its Motion to Compel the Deposition of Plaintiff and Request for Production of Documents. On that same day, AHM filed its Motion to Compel the Vehicle Inspection. To date, no opposition has been filed to either motion. AHM filed notices of non-opposition and still nothing has been filed by Plaintiff in response to either motion.

II. ANALYSIS¿

A. Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450, section (a) provides:

“If, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action or an officer, director, managing agent, or employee of a party, or a person designated by an organization that is a party under Section 2025.230, without having served a valid objection under Section 2025.410, fails to appear for examination, or to proceed with it, or to produce for inspection any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice, the party giving the notice may move for an order compelling the deponent’s attendance and testimony, and the production for inspection of any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice.”

(Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (a).)

The motion must “be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040, or, when the deponent fails to attend the deposition…by a declaration stating that the petitioner has contacted the deponent to inquire about the nonappearance.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (2).) A court shall impose monetary sanctions if the motion to compel is granted unless the one subject to sanctions acted with substantial justification or other circumstances would make the imposition of the sanction unjust. (Code. Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (g)(1).)

B. Discussion

The deposition of the Plaintiff in a Lemon Law case is a basic, fundamental component of discovery to which the defense is entitled upon reasonable notice. For Song-Beverly cases filed on or after January 1, 2025, such a deposition is required even without formal written notice under the recently enacted AB1755. An inspection of the vehicle is also a basic component of discovery in most Leon Law cases. The defense should not be required to file discovery motions to secure the plaintiff’s compliance with these typical, appropriate discovery obligations. And without even a declaration much less formal written opposition, Plaintiff leaves the Court wondering whether the failure to comply is merely careless or is intentional. Without any justification for Plaintiff’s refusal to submit to basic discovery, the Court will GRANT both motions. At oral argument, the Court will facilitate agreement on a date or dates for the deposition and the vehicle inspection to take place. Absent agreement of the parties, the Court will order date, times, and places for each before the end of the month of March, 2025. Monetary sanctions will also be awarded in the amount of $560, payable by Plaintiff and/or plaintiff's counsel to defense counsel on or before March 18, 2025.