Judge: Thomas D. Long, Case: 22STCV33901, Date: 2023-08-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV33901    Hearing Date: January 25, 2024    Dept: 48

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

 

ELENA AYALA, et al.,

                        Plaintiffs,

            vs.

 

FCA US LLC, et al.,

 

                        Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

      CASE NO.: 22STCV33901

 

[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

 

Dept. 48

8:30 a.m.

January 25, 2024

 

On October 19, 2022, Plaintiffs Elena Ayala and Jose Ayala filed this action against Defendant FCA US LLC arising from Plaintiffs’ purchase of an allegedly defective vehicle.

On August 24, 2023, the Court granted in part Plaintiffs’ motions to compel further responses to Special Interrogatories and Requests for Production.

On December 18, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a motion for sanctions because Defendant failed to provide further responses, verifications, or any document production within 45 days, as ordered by the Court.

If a party fails to obey an order compelling inspection, copying, testing, or sampling, the Court may make those orders that are just, including the imposition of an issue sanction, an evidence sanction, a terminating sanction, or a monetary sanction.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.320, subd. (c).)  “In addition to any other sanctions permitted by law, the court may order a person, after written notice and an opportunity to be heard, to pay reasonable monetary sanctions to the court or an aggrieved person, or both, for failure without good cause to comply with the applicable rules.”  (California Rules of Court, rule 2.30.)

Defendant did not comply with the Court’s August 24, 2023 order.  (Lopez Decl. ¶ 9.)  Plaintiffs therefore seek monetary sanctions of $2,235.00.  (Lopez Decl. ¶ 10.)

Defendants did not file a timely opposition to this motion.  However, on January 19, 2024, Defendant filed a late opposition.  According to Defendant, it has now produced the documents.  (Opposition at p. 3.)  Defendant agrees that Plaintiffs’ motion should be granted, but it asks for the monetary sanctions to be reduced.  (Id. at p. 4.)  There is no declaration or other evidence showing when Defendant produced the documents, except for the inference that the production occurred because Plaintiffs filed this motion.

The motion is GRANTED.  Defendant’s counsel is ordered to pay sanctions of $2,235.00 to Plaintiff within 30 days.

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCDEPT48@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit.  If all parties in the case submit on the tentative ruling, no appearances before the Court are required unless a companion hearing (for example, a Case Management Conference) is also on calendar.

 

         Dated this 25th day of January 2025

 

 

 

 

Hon. Thomas D. Long

Judge of the Superior Court