Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 22STCV18013, Date: 2025-01-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV18013    Hearing Date: January 29, 2025    Dept: 47

Tentative Ruling

Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47

HEARING DATE:     January 29, 2025                   TRIAL DATE: August 26, 2025

CASE:                         Michelle Bernardino et al. v. American Honda Motor Co.

CASE NO.:                 22STCV18013           

MOTION TO COMPEL VEHICLE INSPECTION

MOVING PARTY:               Defendant American Honda Motor Co.

RESPONDING PARTY(S): Plaintiffs Michelle and Anthony Bernardino.

CASE HISTORY:

·         06/01/22: Complaint filed.

·         01/24/23: First Amended Complaint filed.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

            This is a lemon law action filed on June 1, 2022. Plaintiffs purchased a 2019 Honda Pilot which they allege developed defects in the infotainment, electrical, transmission, and engine systems.

Defendant moves to compel a vehicle inspection.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant’s Notice of Motion purports to bring this motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.300 as a motion to compel responses to a request for inspection. Defendant concedes that Plaintiff responded to the Demand for Inspection on August 17, 2022. (See Declaration of Mikaela M. Jackson ISO Mot. ¶ 4; see also Plaintiff’s Exh. 2.) Moreover, Plaintiffs’ opposition reveals that Defendant served an Amended Demand on November 1, 2023, with objections served on November 27, 2023. (Plaintiffs’ Exhs. 3-4.) Regardless of which Demand was operative, because Plaintiffs served objections to the Demands, Defendant should have brought this motion as a Motion to Compel Further Response to Demand for Inspection pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310. Such a motion should have been made within 45 days of the response or by any later deadline agreed to by the parties in writing. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2031.310(c).) This motion was filed and served on August 25, 2024, well outside the statutory period for either response, and Defendant provides no evidence of a written agreement between the parties to extend the time to move to compel further responses. The 45-day requirement is mandatory and jurisdictional. (Sexton v. Superior Court¿(1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.)

            Defendant’s motion is a procedurally defective and untimely Motion to Compel Further Responses to Request for Inspection, and the Court is without jurisdiction to hear it.

            Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion to Compel Vehicle Inspection is DENIED.

            Moving Party to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:  January 29, 2025                                ___________________________________

                                                                                    Theresa M. Traber

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court

            Any party may submit on the tentative ruling by contacting the courtroom via email at Smcdept47@lacourt.org by no later than 4:00 p.m. the day before the hearing. All interested parties must be copied on the email. It should be noted that if you submit on a tentative ruling the court will still conduct a hearing if any party appears. By submitting on the tentative you have, in essence, waived your right to be present at the hearing, and you should be aware that the court may not adopt the tentative, and may issue an order which modifies the tentative ruling in whole or in part.