Judge: Stephen I. Goorvitch, Case: 20STCV08872, Date: 2023-08-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV08872    Hearing Date: August 21, 2023    Dept: 39

Ricardo Gonzalez Rios v. Kia Motors America, Inc.

Case No. 20STCV08872

[TENTATIVE] Order re: Final Status Conference

            A.        Witness List

The Court ordered the parties to prepare a joint witness list, and the parties failed to do so in conformity with the Court’s order.  The witness list omits time estimates for most witnesses’ re-direct examinations, and the witness list does not include time for re-cross examinations of any witnesses.  Putting that aside, the parties provide an estimate of at least 26.7 hours for testimony, which is unreasonably high.  “Some litigants are of the mistaken opinion that when they are assigned to a court for trial they have camping rights. . . . This view is not only contrary to law but undermines a trial judge’s obligation to be protective of the court’s time and resources as well as the time and interests of . . . jurors and other litigants waiting in line to have their cases [tried].” (California Crane School, Inc. v. National Com. For Certification of Crane Operators (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 12, 20.)  This concern is critical, as Department #39 currently has 664 open cases, which gives rise to constant jury trials and heavy motions calendars.  Excessive trial estimates deprive other litigants of access to justice. 

            The Court notes that the parties filed a status report stating that “they have been unable to come to any stipulations in this matter.”  There are a variety of factual stipulations that can be reached in every case under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, e.g., the date the vehicle was purchased/leased, the mileage, the dates on which the vehicle was tendered for repairs, the authenticity/admissibility of the repair records, the terms of the warranty, etc.  The parties’ failure to reach such basic stipulations demonstrates that, at best, they are not handling this case efficiently, and, at worst, they are not acting in good faith. 

            The Court notes that the parties did not meet-and-confer concerning stipulations to exhibits, as ordered by the Court, because most of the respective columns are blank on the joint exhibit list.  Many of the exhibits should be pre-admitted, e.g., photographs of the vehicle which Plaintiff can authenticate; repair records which are business records, etc.  The parties’ failure to meet-and-confer and reach stipulations to exhibits that clearly are authentic and admissible demonstrates that they are not handling the case efficiently or are not acting in good faith. 

            The Court notes that the parties have violated the Court’s orders by filing motions in limine without meeting-and-conferring concerning the relevant issues.  Indeed, the parties filed boilerplate motions, identical to those filed in every case under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.  Again, this demonstrates that the parties are not handling this case efficiently or are not acting in good faith. 

The Court also notes that Plaintiff and his counsel have repeatedly misused courtroom time in advance of trial.  Their misconduct necessitated repeated motions and hearings merely to schedule the vehicle inspection.  Following these hearings, the Court found that Plaintiff and his counsel knowingly and willfully violated the Court’s orders by intentionally failing to make the vehicle available for inspection.  Specifically, the Court ordered as follows:

“The Court is reminded of saying: Res Ipsa Loquitur. The record in this case speaks for itself. A vehicle inspection is standard in every case under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. Usually, the Court need not issue any order. In almost every case, the defendant notices the vehicle inspection under the Code of Civil Procedure, and the plaintiff makes the vehicle available for inspection. The fact that the Court had to issue any order makes this case extraordinary. This case also is unusual because the Court has issued four separate orders compelling the vehicle inspection, and each time, Plaintiff did not make the vehicle available for inspection. There was a violation of the first order. The Court simply issued another order without imposing any sanctions. There was a violation of the second order. The Court found that Defendant bore some responsibility, but that Plaintiff clearly violated the spirit of the order and likely violated the letter of the order as it was explained to Plaintiff’s counsel in open court. The Court also notes that Plaintiff refused to allow Defendant to keep the vehicle in order to make the necessary repair (even though the vehicle was not drivable). The Court elected not to impose sanctions but instead issued a discovery order that clearly outlined the procedure for the vehicle inspection. That should have resolved the issue. But it did not. Inexplicably, Plaintiff violated the third order by failing to make the vehicle available for repair and inspection, and the Court found that there was a willful violation of a clear court order. The Court imposed monetary sanctions and issued another order, again outlining a clear procedure—in detail—for the vehicle inspection. Again, Plaintiff and his counsel violated the Court’s order of January 11, 2022. The Court finds that the Court’s order was clear. The Court finds that the violation of this order was knowing and willful. The Court finds that Plaintiff and his counsel have intentionally failed to make the vehicle available for inspection.”

(Court’s Minute Order, dated May 20, 2022, p. 9.)

            Based upon the foregoing, the Court orders that the parties shall have six (6) hours for everything from opening statement to closing argument, absent unforeseen circumstances or other good cause.  In the Court’s experience, this should be sufficient time to try a case of this nature, even accounting for Plaintiff’s use of a Spanish language interpreter.  Voir dire shall be handled separately and shall not count against this time estimate.

            B.        CACI 204 Instruction as a Sanction

The Court previously found that Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel engaged in misconduct by intentionally failing to make the vehicle available for inspection, knowingly and willfully violating the Court’s orders to do so.  The Court incorporates its minute order of May 20, 2022, by reference.  The Court elected not to impose an issue sanction because that would effectively constitute a terminating sanction in a case under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act:  

“The Court does not interpret the law as requiring the charade of a trial under these circumstances.  This is especially true as the Los Angeles Superior Court attempts to try the backlog of case created by the pandemic.  This also would not be fair to jurors forced to spend their time on a fait accompli.” 

(Court’s Minute Order, dated May 20, 2022, p. 11.)  Instead of imposing an issue sanction, the Court elected to give an instruction under CACI 204 as follows:

“Defendants in cases under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act have a right to inspect the vehicle. The Court found that Plaintiff willfully disobeyed two court orders to make the vehicle available for inspection before finally doing so. You may consider whether one party intentionally concealed or destroyed evidence. If you decide that a party did so, you may decide that the evidence would have been unfavorable to that party.”

(Id., p. 13.)  The Court posted a tentative order on this issue in advance of the final status conference set for August 11, 2023, but Plaintiff’s counsel did not appear.  Therefore, the Court adopted its tentative order but stated: “The Court will reconsider this ruling at the upcoming final status conference if Plaintiff’s counsel has good cause for having failed to appear at the final status conference and provides good cause not to give this instruction.”  (Court’s Minute Order, dated August 11, 2023, p. 5.)  The Court has no tentative order on this issue.

            C.        Plaintiff’s Motions in Limine

MIL #1 – Denied without prejudice.  Plaintiff seeks to exclude “testimony regarding Defendant’s current ability to repair or cost of repairing the vehicle.”  The Court cannot rule on this issue in the abstract.  This evidence may be relevant to whether there was substantial impairment and whether Defendant acted in good faith.  Therefore, the motion is denied without prejudice. 

                        MIL #2 – Granted.  There shall be no reference to attorney’s fees at trial.

                        MIL #3 – Granted.  There shall be no reference to Plaintiff’s financial condition by either party at trial. 

                        MIL #4 – Denied.  Defendant is entitled to present evidence that Plaintiff misused, abused, or poorly maintained the vehicle and that Plaintiff’s misconduct—rather than any defect—caused the mechanical problems that Plaintiff experienced.  In this case, Defendant has a legitimate basis to raise such a defense.  Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion in limine is denied. 

                        MIL #5 – Granted.  There shall be no reference to settlement negotiations at trial.

                        MIL #6 – Denied without prejudice.  Plaintiff seeks to exclude “testimony, argument or implication that Plaintiff did not make sufficient efforts to ask Defendant to repurchase or replace the subject vehicle.”  The Court cannot rule on this issue in the abstract.  Evidence concerning Plaintiff’s communications may be relevant to the issue of willfulness.  Therefore, this motion is denied without prejudice. 

                        MIL #7 – Granted.  There shall be no reference to attorney advertisements at trial.  Nor may Defendant’s counsel inquire how Plaintiff located and retained Plaintiff’s counsel.

                        MIL #8 – Granted in part; denied in part.  The Court orders that neither party may call an expert in the case-in-chief who has not been so designated, absent an order from the Court.  However, this order shall not preclude either party from calling a rebuttal expert witness, per Code of Civil Procedure section 2034.310(b). 

                        MIL #9 – Granted.  There shall be no reference to cases like the instant case increasing the cost of vehicles.

                        MIL #10 – Denied without prejudice.  The Court cannot rule on this issue in advance of trial because the Court must review the deposition transcripts to determine whether there has been a violation of Kennemur v. State of California (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 907.

                        MIL #11 – Denied.  Defendant is entitled to present evidence that it repaired the vehicle.

                        MIL #12 – Granted.  Plaintiff seeks to preclude Defendant from arguing that the dealership was not its agent.  Defendant does not oppose the motion.  Therefore, it is granted.                     

                        MIL #13 – The Court does not have sufficient information to resolve this motion.  Therefore, the motion is denied.

            D.        Defendant’s Motions in Limine

MIL #1 – Granted.  Plaintiff may not introduce or reference service information bulletins or recall campaigns that are not related to the defects at issue in this case.

                        MIL #2 – Denied without prejudice.  The Court has previously found that Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel have knowingly and willfully violated the Court’s orders by intentionally failing to make the vehicle available for inspection, giving rise to concerns about discovery abuse.  Nevertheless, the Court cannot exclude witnesses or evidence not identified or produced during discovery unless the omission violated a court order or otherwise was willful. (New Albertsons, Inc. v. Superior Court (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1422-1434; see also Mitchell v. Superior Court (2015) 243 Cal.App.4th 269, 272; Saxena v. Goffney (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 316, 334.)  Therefore, the motion is denied without prejudice.

                        MIL #3 – Granted.  Plaintiff may not testify concerning the value of the vehicle or provide testimony concerning matters subject to expert witness testimony.  Plaintiff may only provide percipient witness testimony.

                        MIL #4 – Granted.  Plaintiff is not entitled to emotional distress damages in this case.  Therefore, such evidence is excluded under Evidence Code section 352, as it has little probative value, and any probative value is greatly outweighed by the prejudice.   

                        MIL #5 – Granted in part; denied in part.  Plaintiff may testify that he expected the vehicle to function properly.  Plaintiff may provide percipient witness testimony concerning the problems he experienced.  However, he may not testify more generally concerning his expectations and whether the vehicle satisfied his expectations.

                        MIL #6 – Granted.  Plaintiff is not entitled to emotional distress damages in this case, so he may not testify concerning “frustration, lack of pleasure, aggravation, disappointment, inconvenience, and loss of confidence in the vehicle.”  The Court finds that evidence concerning non-economic damages is excluded under Evidence Code section 352, as it has little probative value, and any probative value is greatly outweighed by the prejudice.

                        MIL #7 – Granted.  There shall be no “Golden Rule” arguments at trial.  Nor shall Plaintiff’s counsel refer to Plaintiff as a “victim.”

                        MIL #8 – Granted.  There shall be no “David and Goliath” arguments at trial. 

                        MIL #9 – Granted in part; denied in part.  Defendant seeks to exclude evidence of defects after the expiration of the warranty.  The motion is granted in part and denied in part.  Plaintiff may introduce evidence of a defect outside the warranty period provided that it is the same defect that forms the basis of the instant case, i.e., a defect that was presented for repair.  This evidence is relevant to the issue whether the vehicle was defective and whether the defect was repaired.  Plaintiff may not introduce evidence of a “new” defect outside the warranty period. 

                        MIL #10 – Granted.  Defendant seeks to exclude evidence or argument concerning complaints, repairs, or repurchases relating to other vehicles.  The motion is granted.  The Court excludes this evidence under Evidence Code section 352.  The dispositive issue is whether Defendant failed to repair Plaintiff’s vehicle after a reasonable number of opportunities to do so.  Whether other owners had complaints that resulted in repairs and/or repurchases has little probative value in resolving this dispositive issue.  Moreover, any probative value is greatly outweighed by the prejudice of having “trials within a trial” concerning other vehicles, resulting in undue delay and confusion of the issues.  Moreover, it is unclear how Plaintiff would introduce such evidence in an admissible manner, since these complaints would constitute hearsay, and experts relying on such evidence would violate People v. Sanchez (2016) 63 Cal.4th 665.  Therefore, the motion is granted with respect to other complaints, repairs, or repurchases.   

            E.         Order to Show Cause re: Sanctions

            The Court has no tentative order on this issue.   

            F.         Notice – The Court’s clerk shall provide notice.