Judge: Teresa A. Beaudet, Case: 21STCV31115, Date: 2024-07-31 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV31115    Hearing Date: July 31, 2024    Dept: 50

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

Background

Plaintiffs William Burns and Terri Burns (jointly, “Plaintiffs”) filed this action against Defendant General Motors, LLC (“GM”) on August 23, 2021. The Complaint alleges causes of action for (1) breach of implied warranty of merchantability under the Song-Beverly Act, (2) breach of express warranty under the Song-Beverly Act, and (3) fraudulent inducement - concealment. On February 14, 2022, the Court issued an Order sustaining GM’s demurrer to the

third cause of action (fraudulent inducement – concealment), without leave to amend.

            On January 10, 2024, the Court issued a minute order in this matter providing, inter alia, that “[a] Notice of Settlement was filed January 9, 2024…” In his declaration in support of the instant motion, Plaintiffs’ counsel states that “[p]ursuant to the Offer to Compromise signed by Plaintiffs on December 8, 2023, GM agreed (1) to pay Plaintiff $95,000.00, inclusive of a Two-Times Civil Penalty and additional damages; (2) that Plaintiffs are the prevailing party; (3) to pay Plaintiffs pre-judgement interest pursuant to Civil Code §§ 3287(b) and 3289(b); and (4) that GM would pay Plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses pursuant to Civil Code § 1794(d) by way of motion.” (Barry Decl., ¶ 19, emphasis omitted.)

            Plaintiffs now move for an order awarding their attorney fees, costs, and expenses. GM opposes.

Discussion  

A.    Procedural Issues

As an initial matter, GM filed an opposition to the instant motion on July 18, 2024. As noted by Plaintiffs in the reply, the July 18, 2024 opposition is 20 pages.

Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1113, subdivision (d), “[e]xcept in a summary judgment or summary adjudication motion, no opening or responding memorandum may exceed 15 pages. In a summary judgment or summary adjudication motion, no opening or responding memorandum may exceed 20 pages. No reply or closing memorandum may exceed 10 pages. The page limit does not include the caption page, the notice of motion and motion, exhibits, declarations, attachments, the table of contents, the table of authorities, or the proof of service.” (Emphasis added.)

In addition, on July 24, 2024, the same day Plaintiffs filed their reply in support of the motion, GM filed an amended opposition. The Court notes that GM does not appear to cite any Court order authorizing it to file an amended opposition. GM’s July 24, 2024 opposition is 14 pages. In their reply, Plaintiffs assert that “[a]s for the Amended Opposition, though the pagination appears to meet the 15 page limit, it does not. All the same, GM had to get permission from this Court to file an oversized briefing. It did not.” (Reply at p. 3:23-25.)

As noted by Plaintiffs, pages 7:10-8:6 and 9:1-13:4 of GM’s amended opposition contain single spaced text. Plaintiffs assert that the “single spaced arguments…amount to an additional three pages.” (Reply at p. 4:13.) Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 2.108(1), “[t]he lines on each page must be one and one-half spaced or double-spaced and numbered consecutively.” Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 2.108(3), “[f]ootnotes, quotations, and printed forms of corporate surety bonds and undertakings may be single-spaced and have unnumbered lines if they comply generally with the space requirements of rule 2.111.” Here, most of the

single-spaced text on pages 7:10-8:6 and 9:1-13:4 of GM’s amended opposition does not appear to consist of quotations. Plaintiffs also note that “[a] memorandum that exceeds 10 pages must include a table of contents and a table of authorities.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1113, subd. (f).) GM’s original opposition and amended opposition do not include a table of contents or a table of authorities.

In their reply, Plaintiffs assert that “if this Court chooses to consider GM’s Opposition, Plaintiffs request this Court cease its consideration at page 10 of 14 (using the page numbering system found in GM’s Opposition) as it is truly the 15th page. Should this Court consider GM’s Noncompliant Opposition in total, Plaintiffs request leave to file a supplemental briefing to all of the pages this Court considers in GM’s Noncompliant Amended Opposition.” (Reply at pp. 5:28-6:5.)

Conclusion

In light of the foregoing issues, the Court continues the hearing on Plaintiffs’ motion for attorneys’ fees and costs to ____________, 2024, at 10:00 a.m. in Dept. 50.

On or before ____________, 2024, GM is to file amended opposition papers that comply with the applicable page number, spacing, and other relevant requirements set forth in California Rules of Court, rules 3.1113 and 2.108. Courtesy copies must be delivered to Dept. 50. No new evidence or new argument is to be submitted in GM’s amended opposition papers.

On or before ____________, 2024, Plaintiffs may file a new reply brief that will supersede the previously filed reply papers. Courtesy copies of any new reply brief AS WELL AS THE MOTION must be delivered to Dept. 50. Plaintiffs are ordered to give notice of this Order.¿¿ 

DATED:  July 31, 2024                                  ________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court