Judge: Thomas Falls, Case: 21PSCV00571, Date: 2022-11-07 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21PSCV00571 Hearing Date: November 7, 2022 Dept: R
Jonathon Blas v. Ford Motor Co. (21PSCV00571)
______________________________________________________________________________
DEFENDANT FORD MOTOR COMPANY’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION
TO COMPEL SUPPLEMENTAL VEHICLE INSPECTION, OR ALTERNATIVELY, FOR LEAVE TO
CONDUCT SECOND VEHICLE INSPECTION AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF
$935
Responding
Party: Unopposed (due 9 court days before hearing)
Tentative Ruling
DEFENDANT FORD MOTOR COMPANY’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND
MOTION TO COMPEL SUPPLEMENTAL VEHICLE INSPECTION, OR ALTERNATIVELY, FOR LEAVE
TO CONDUCT SECOND VEHICLE INSPECTION AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF
$935 is GRANTED.
Background
This is a lemon law case.
On July 13, 2021, Plaintiff filed
suit against Defendant for statutory violations of the Song-Beverly Consumer
Warranty Act after purchasing a 2021 Ford F150 (“Vehicle”). According to Plaintiff, since purchasing the
Vehicle, “Plaintiff has delivered the Vehicle for repair to Defendant or its
authorized repair facility(s) no less than eight (8) times for repair of
nonconformity(s) to warranty, including, but not limited to defect(s) which
have manifested in: unable to adjust trailer gain when trailer connected to
vehicle, brake controller unable to adjust trailer brake gain, loss of
communication with body control module and trailer brake controller, when using
vehicle for towing a trailer the trailer brakes not engaging, vehicle having
difficulty stopping when using vehicle for towing, and having to manually
engage trailer brakes with slider on gain controller when using vehicle for
towing.” (Complaint ¶11.)
On August 6, 2021, Defendant filed its Answer.
On June 21, 2022, Defendant filed its instant Motion for
Summary Judgment/Summary Adjudication (“Motion”).
On September 28, 2022, the court
heard oral argument on the MSJ. The court noted Plaintiff raised a new issue in
its opposition such that would require Defendant to re-inspect the vehicle.
Therefore, the court denied the MSJ without prejudice.
On November 7, 2022, Defendant
filed the instant Motion.
Discussion
The court need not engage in a
thorough analysis of the motion because the court explicitly denied the MSJ
to allow for defendant to complete a second vehicle inspection. Defendant
explains that Plaintiff has refused to cooperate.
Based thereon, the court also
grants Defendant’s request for monetary sanctions. Utilizing a Lodestar
approach, and in view of the totality of the circumstances, the court imposes
sanctions on Plaintiff’s Counsel in the amount of $935.
Conclusion