Judge: Virginia Keeny, Case: 23STCV10024, Date: 2025-01-10 Tentative Ruling
All rulings shown here are TENTATIVE ONLY, and thus oral argument WILL be heard. All Counsel are still required to attend.
Case Number: 23STCV10024 Hearing Date: January 10, 2025 Dept: 45
Crosby vs WestCoastAUTOAuction, Inc.
1. Motion to compel Further Responses to Form
Interogatories, Set Three
2. Motion to Compel further responses to Special
Interrogatories, Set One
Date of Hearing: January
10, 2025 Trial Date: March 24, 2025
Department: 45 Case No.: 23STCV10024
Moving Party: Plaintiff
Jordyn N. Crosby
Responding Party: Defendant WestCoastAuction, Inc.
BACKGROUND
On May 2,
2023, plaintiff Jordyn N. Crosby (“Plaintiff”) filed this action.
On June 30,
2023, Plaintiff filed the operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) against
WestCoastAutoAuction, Inc (“Defendant”) and Does 1 through 75, asserting causes
of action for (1) violations of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”), (2)
intentional misrepresentation, (3) concealment, (4) negligent
misrepresentation, (5) breach of warranty of title, (6) violations of Vehicle
Code section 5753, (7) violations of the Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”), and
(8) violations of Vehicle Code section 11711. The FAC alleges the following,
among other things. On December 26, 2022, Plaintiff purchased a 2010 Chevrolet
Camaro LT from Defendant, a car dealership. (FAC, ¶¶ 1, 2, 6.) At the time of
purchase, Defendant represented that it would deliver registration and title of
the vehicle to Plaintiff. (FAC, ¶ 7.) Therefore, Plaintiff paid Defendant
$10,000 and left with the vehicle. (FAC, ¶ 8.) However, Defendant has never
given Plaintiff registration or title for the vehicle. (FAC, ¶¶ 9, 10.)
On June 6, 2024, Plaintiff filed the instant motions to
compel Defendant’s further responses to her Form Interrogatories, Set Three,
and Special Interrogatories, Set One, to which Defendant opposed on December
23, 2024, and which Plaintiff replied on January 3, 2025.
Trial is set for March 24, 2025.
[Tentative] Ruling
1.
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further
Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set Three is DENIED.
2.
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further
Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One is GRANTED IN PART and
DENIED IN PART. The
request to compel further response to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories, Set
One, Nos. 1, 2, 6, 7, 11, 14, 20, and 26 is DENIED. The request to
compel further response to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories, Set One, Nos.
9, and 10 is GRANTED. Defendant is ordered to serve further responses to
those requests for admissions within 30 days of this ruling.
Motion
to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set Three
LEGAL STANDARD
Under Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.300, a court may
order a party to serve a further response to interrogatories when the court
finds that any of the following apply:
Under Civil Procedure Code 2030.220 subdivisions (a) and
(b), a responding party’s answer to interrogatories must be “as complete and
straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party
permits; if an interrogatory cannot be answered completely, it shall be
answered to the extent possible.” It is improper for an answer to only respond
to a portion of the information sought, particularly when an interrogatory is
specific and explicit. (Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 783.)
In response to a motion to compel further responses, the respondent bears the
burden of justifying any objections. (Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court
(2000) 22 Cal.4th 245, 255.)
ANALYSIS
Plaintiff asks the Court for an
order compelling further responses from Defendant to Plaintiff’s Form
Interrogatories, Set Three, No. 17.1 as it pertains to Defendant’s responses to
Requests for Admissions Nos. 1, 2, 3, 11, 14, 15, 22, 23, and 25.
Defendant asks the Court to deny
the motion.
Meet and Confer
“A motion [to
compel further responses to interrogatories] shall be accompanied by a meet and
confer declaration under Section 2016.040.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd.
(b)(1).) Section 2016.040 states: “A meet and confer declaration in support of
a motion shall state facts showing a reasonable and good faith attempt at an
informal resolution of each issue presented by the motion.” Defendant contends the motion should be
denied in its entirety due to inadequate meet and confer efforts on the part of
plaintiff.
Here,
Plaintiff’s counsel testifies that Defendant did not respond to Plaintiff’s
meet and confer letter dated April 30, 2024. (Means RFA Decl., ¶ 10.)
In support of the opposition, defense counsel testifies that on May 6,
2024, a month before Plaintiff filed this motion, Defendant requested a one (1)
week extension to May 14, 2024 to respond to the meet and confer letter.
(Declaration of Randell Y. Hong, filed July 8, 2024, ¶ 4.) On May 14, 2024, defense
counsel responded to Plaintiff’s meet and confer letter, but Plaintiff’s
counsel never responded. (Id. ¶ 5.)
In her reply,
Plaintiff argues that regardless of whether she responded to defense counsel’s
letter dated May 14, 2024, she met her burden of attempting to informally
resolve the issue through the first and second meet and confer letter. (Reply,
p. 2:8-16.) In addition, that further meet and confer would have been in vain
since defense counsel had stated that Defendant will not supplement some
responses (Reply, p. 2:17-22.)
The Court
finds Plaintiff has satisfied the meet and confer requirement and Defendant’s
argument that the meet and confer process was insufficient, even if true, is
not grounds for denying the motion.
Separate
Statement
Plaintiff has
satisfied the separate statement requirement. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300,
subd. (b)(2) [requiring separate statements for motions to compel further
responses to interrogatories]; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(a)(1) [same];
Separate Statement in support of FIN Motion, filed on June 6, 2024 (“FIN SS”).)
Request
to Compel Further Responses to Form Interrogatories, Set Three
Plaintiff asks the Court for an
order compelling further responses from Defendant to Plaintiff’s Form
Interrogatories, Set Three, No. 17.1 as it pertains to Defendant’s responses to
Requests for Admissions Nos. 1, 2, 3, 11, 14, 15, 22, 23, and 25, arguing that
Defendant’s responses are evasive and incomplete.
Defendant asks the Court to deny
the motion, arguing that its responses are neither evasive nor incomplete.
Form Interrogatories No. 17.1
states:
Is your
response to each request for admission served with these interrogatories an
unqualified admission? If not, for each response that is not an unqualified
admission:
(a) state the
number of the request;
(b) state all
facts upon which you base your response;
(c) state the
names, ADDRESSES, and telephone numbers of all PERSONS who have knowledge of
those facts; and
(d) identify
all DOCUMENTS and other tangible things that support your response and state
the name, ADDRESS, and telephone number of the PERSON who has each DOCUMENT or
thing.
RFA No. 1 asked
Defendant to admit that “[o]n May 2, 2023, Plaintiff sent [Defendant] a copy of
the letter attached hereto as Exhibit 1 via certified mail, return receipt
requested, at the place where it sold her the 2010 Chevrolet Camaro LT with
VIN: 2G1FC1EV4A9218745.” (FIN SS, p. 2:14-16.)
RFA No.
2 asked Defendant
to admit it “received a copy of the letter attached hereto as Exhibit 1 no
later than May 5, 2023, at the place where it sold Plaintiff the 2010 Chevrolet
Camaro LT with VIN: 2G1FC1EV4A9218745.” (FIN SS, p. 2:25-27.)
RFA No.
3 asked Defendant
to admit that it “did not respond to the letter attached hereto as Exhibit 1
within 30 days of its receipt of the letter.” (FIN SS, p. 3:8-9.)
RFA No.
11 asked
Defendant to admit that “[a]t the time of the sale of the 2010 Chevrolet Camaro
LT with VIN: 2G1FC1EV4A9218745, WestCoastAutoAuction, Inc., represented to
Plaintiff that it would deliver registration and title of the vehicle to her.”
(FIN SS, p. 3:20-22.)
RFA No.
14 asked
Defendant to admit it “has not provided Plaintiff any refunds related to her
purchase of the 2010 Chevrolet Camaro LT with VIN: 2G1FC1EV4A9218745 since she
purchased the vehicle.” (FIN SS, p. 4:20-21.)
RFA No.
15 asked
Defendant to admit that it “violated the Consumers Legal Remedies Act in the
sale of the 2010 Chevrolet Camaro LT with VIN: 2G1FC1EV4A9218745 to Plaintiff.”
(FIN SS, p. 5:3-4.)
RFA No
22 asks Defendant
to admit it “did not deliver title for the 2010 Chevrolet Camaro LT with VIN:
2G1FC1EV4A9218745 to Plaintiff within fifteen business days of December 26,
2022.” (FIN SS, p. 6:10-11.)
RFA No.
23 asked
Defendant to admit that “[a]s of May 2, 2023, [it] had not paid any money to
Plaintiff pursuant to Vehicle Code § 5753(e).” (FIN SS, p. 6:22-23.)
Finally, RFA
No. 25 asked Defendant to admit that it “did not pay Plaintiff any
money pursuant to Vehicle Code § 5753(e) within 60 days of its receipt of the
Complaint in this action.” (FIN SS, p. 9:1-2.)
Defendant served the following supplemental response to RFA No. 1:
“Responding Party admits to the extent that it received a copy of
Exhibit 1 in the mail on or about May 2023 at its offices where it sold
Plaintiff the vehicle; however, after a reasonable inquiry concerning the
matter in this request has been made and the information known or readily
obtainable is insufficient to enable Responding Party to admit the matter as it
relates to the exact date or whether it was via certified mail, return receipt
requested.” (FIN SS, p. 9:12-16 [emphasis added].)
Defendant
again used “admits to the extent” and “denies to the extent” language in its
response to RFA Nos. 2, 11, 14, 22, 23, and 25. (FIN SS, p. 10:1-4, 13:3-5, 14:7-10,
18:23-19:5, 19:23-25, 20:10-12.)
Defendant served the following supplemental response to RFA No. 3: “Responding
Party denies on the grounds that it reached out to Plaintiff after receiving
the letter, through Gregorio Rodriguez, owner of Defendant, by telephone
wherein Plaintiff stated to speak with her attorney. Mr. Rodriguez then called
Plaintiff’s attorney to attempt to resolve Plaintiff’s matter; however, he was
not provided any recourse.” (FIN SS, p.10:16-19.)
Defendant
served the following supplemental response to RFA No. 15: “Responding Party
denies on the grounds that it did not use any deceptive practices contained
within the Consumers Legal Remedies Act.” (FIN SS, p.14:26-27.)
“Each answer in a response to interrogatories shall be as complete and
straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party
permits.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220, subd. (a).) “If an interrogatory cannot
be answered completely, it shall be answered to the extent possible.” (Code
Civ. Proc., § 2030.220, subd. (b).) “If the responding party does not have
personal knowledge sufficient to respond fully to an interrogatory, that party
shall so state, but shall make a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the
information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations, except where
the information is equally available to the propounding party.” (Code Civ.
Proc., § 2030.220, subd. (c).)
“Each answer in a response to requests for admission shall be as complete
and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding
party permits.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.220, subd. (a).) Specifically, “[e]ach
answer shall: ¶ (1) Admit so much of the matter involved in the request as is
true, either as expressed in the request itself or as reasonably and clearly
qualified by the responding party. ¶ (2) Deny so much of the matter involved in
the request as is untrue. ¶ (3) Specify so much of the matter involved in the
request as to the truth of which the responding party lacks sufficient
information or knowledge.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.220, subd. (b).)
As to RFA Nos. 1, 2,
11, 14, 22, 23, and 25, Defendant used “admits to the extent” and “denies to
the extent” language, which is a vague and evasive response. However,
Defendant’s counsel represents that on September 5, 2024, this Court granted in
part a change in Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for
Admissions, Set One, wherein the words “to the extent” were to be taken out and
the sentence be broken into two sentences. (See Hong Decl. ¿ 13, Ex. “E.”) In light of this slight
modification agreed to by the parties to the foregoing RFAs at the September 5,
2024 hearing, Defendant argues that Plaintiff cannot now claim the responses
are unclear. Plaintiff fails to mention the September 5, 2024 hearing. The
Court agrees with Defendant. Therefore, the
request to compel further response to Plaintiff’s
Form Interrogatories, Set Three, No. 17.1 as it pertains to Defendant’s
responses to RFAs Nos. 1, 2, 11, 14, 22, 23, and 25 is DENIED.
As to RFA No. 3, Defendant argues
that “after meeting and conferring with Plaintiff’s counsel, Defendant provided
a code compliant response stating that ‘… a reasonable and good faith effort to
obtain the information by inquiry has been made and in the event that documents
are found, Responding Party will amend this response. Plaintiff and her
attorney have access to this information and is equally available to
Propounding Party.’” (Opp., p. 6:1-5; FIN SS, p. 11:1-4.) The Court finds the
foregoing response code compliant under section 2030.220, subdivision c. Further,
Plaintiff’s motion references Defendant’s initial response rather than the
supplemental response that was provided. (Motion, p.5:7-12.) Therefore, the
request to compel further response to Plaintiff’s
Form Interrogatories, Set Three, No. 17.1 as it pertains to Defendant’s
responses to RFA No. 3 is DENIED.
As to RFA No. 15, Plaintiff argues that Defendant’s response is evasive
and incomplete. Defendant contends that there are no facts to a non-occurrence
and there are no documents and thus no information to provide. In reply,
Plaintiff argues that section 2030.010 subdivision b requires Defendant to
state all facts that support its conclusion. The Court disagrees with
Plaintiff’s argument as that section merely provides: “An interrogatory may
relate to whether another party is making a certain contention, or to the
facts, witnesses, and writings on which a contention is based. An interrogatory
is not objectionable because an answer to it involves an opinion or contention that
relates to fact or the application of law to fact, or would be based on
information obtained or legal theories developed in anticipation of litigation
or in preparation for trial.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.010, subd. (b).)
Therefore, the request to compel further response to Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories, Set Three, No.
17.1 as it pertains to Defendant’s responses to RFA No. 15 is DENIED.
Plaintiff has not requested monetary sanctions in connection with this
motion and the Court declines to award such.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses from
Defendant to Form Interrogatories, Set Three, is DENIED.
Motion to Compel Further REsponses
to Special Interrogatories, Set One
ANALYSIS
Plaintiff asks the Court for an
order compelling further responses from Defendant to Plaintiff’s Special
Interrogatories, Set One, Nos. 1, 2, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 14, 20, and 26.
Defendant asks the Court to deny
the motion.
Motion Timeliness and Meet and Confer
The Court
finds that Plaintiff has satisfied the timeliness and meet and confer requirements
for the same reasons it found Plaintiff had done so for Plaintiff’s motion to
compel further responses to Form Interrogatories, Set Three. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300, subd. (c)
[“Unless notice of this motion is given within 45 days of the service of the
verified response, or any supplemental verified response, or on or before any
specific later date to which the demanding party and the responding party have
agreed in writing, the demanding party waives any right to compel a further
response to the interrogatories”]; 2030.300, subd. (b)(2) [stating that the motion must be accompanied by a
meet and confer declaration].)
Separate
Statement
Plaintiff has
satisfied the separate statement requirement. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300,
subd. (b)(2) [requiring separate statements for motions to compel further
responses to interrogatories]; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1345(a)(1) [same];
Separate Statement in support of SIN Motion, filed on June 6, 2024 (“SIN SS”).)
Request
to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories
Plaintiff asks the Court for an
order compelling further responses from Defendant to Plaintiff’s Special
Interrogatories, Set One, Nos. 1, 2, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 14, 20, and 26, arguing
that Defendant’s responses are evasive and incomplete.
Defendant asks the Court to deny
the motion, arguing that its responses are neither evasive nor incomplete.
Plaintiff’s Separate Statement in
support of her motion to compel further responses from Defendant to Special
Interrogatories, Set One, provides: “[t]o ‘IDENTIFY’ a person, whether a
natural person or business entity, means to: (1) state his, her, or its full
name; (2) state his, her, or its present or last known personal address, email
address, and telephone number; (3) state his, her, or its present or last known
business address, business email address, and telephone number; (4) state his,
her, or its present or last known occupation, position, or business affiliation; (5) state each position or
affiliation he, she, or it had with defendants or anyone of them at any
relevant time; (6) specify the period of time he, she, or it had such position
or affiliation.” (SIN SS, p. 1:24-2:2.)
SIN No. 1 asked
Defendant: “IDENTIFY each of WestCoastAutoAuction, Inc.’s employees involved in
its acquisition of the 2010 Chevrolet Camaro LT with VIN: 2G1FC1EV4A9218745.” (SIN
SS, p. 2:4-5.)
SIN No.
2 asked Defendant:
“IDENTIFY each of WestCoastAutoAuction, Inc.’s employees who have inspected the
2010 Chevrolet Camaro LT with VIN: 2G1FC1EV4A9218745.” (SIN SS, p. 2:6-7.)
SIN No.
6 asked Defendant:
“IDENTIFY each of WestCoastAutoAuction, Inc.’s employees who have communicated
with Plaintiff about the 2010 Chevrolet Camaro LT with VIN: 2G1FC1EV4A9218745.”
(SIN SS, p. 4:4-5.)
SIN No.
7 asked Defendant:
“IDENTIFY the entity who issued the bond to WestCoastAutoAuction, Inc. in
effect in December 2022.” (SIN SS, p. 4:24-25.)
SIN No.
9 asked Defendant:
“What date did the bond in effect in December 2022 issued to
WestCoastAutoAuction, Inc., become effective?” (SIN SS, p. 5:19-20.)
SIN No.
10 asked
Defendant: “What date did the bond in effect in December 2022 issued to
WestCoastAutoAuction, Inc., expire?” (SIN SS, p. 6:12-13.)
SIN No.
11 asked
Defendant: “If you contend you did not violate the Consumers Legal Remedies Act
in the sale of the 2010 Chevrolet Camaro LT with VIN: 2G1FC1EV4A9218745 to Plaintiff,
state all facts you believe support your contention.” (SIN SS, p. 7:4-6.)
SIN No.
14 asked
Defendant: “If you contend you did not violate the Unfair Competition Law in
the sale of the 2010 Chevrolet Camaro LT with VIN: 2G1FC1EV4A9218745 to
Plaintiff, state all facts you believe support your contention.” (SIN SS, p. 9:25-27.)
SIN No.
20 asked
Defendant: “If you contend you did not breach the warranty of title in the sale
of the 2010 Chevrolet Camaro LT with VIN: 2G1FC1EV4A9218745 to Plaintiff, state
all facts you believe support your contention.” (SIN SS, p. 13:11-12.)
SIN No.
26 asked
Defendant: “Why didn’t WestCoastAutoAuction, Inc., pay Plaintiff any money
pursuant to Vehicle Code § 5753(e)?” (SIN SS, p. 14:26-27.)
As to SIN
Nos. 1 and 2, Defendant initially provided an incomplete response because
Defendant failed to provide information regarding the identity of its “employees”
who were involved in the deal of the subject vehicle and the “entity” who
issued the bond. However, Defendant also provided a further response to these
special interrogatories, wherein Defendant acknowledged its initial responses
were made in error and thus corrected to provide the correct information. The
Court finds the further response to these special interrogatories neither
evasive nor incomplete contrary to Plaintiff’s arguments. Therefore, the
request to compel further response to SIN Nos. 1 and 2 is DENIED.
As to SIN No.
6. Defendant’s initial response provides: “Carolina Delgado; German Henry
Hernandez, employees/representatives at WestCoastAutoAuction, Inc., 1164 N.
Hacienda Blvd, La Puente, California 91744, who can be reached through their
counsel.” (SIN SS, p. 4:7-9.) Defendant’s further response provides: “Carolina
Delgado, present employee/sales at WestCoastAutoAuction, Inc., (626)727- 1192,
14614 Flynn St, La Puente, CA 91744, employee since August 2022; German Henry
Hernandez, present employee/sales at WestCoastAutoAuction, Inc., (951) 261-
3695 1327 Salmon River Rd Riverside Ca 92501, employee since November 2022.” (SIN
SS, p. 4:11-14.) This response is sufficient.
Plaintiff cannot multiply a single interrogatory by requesting multiple
subparts.
As to SIN No.
7, the Court finds that Defendant’s initial response and further response similarly
fail to provide all the information required per Plaintiff’s definition of the
term “IDENTIFY.” Defendant’s initial response merely states, “Merchants Bonding
Company”; whereas Defendant’s further response merely refers Plaintiff to
documents that can be identified by the bates stamped: WEST_CROSBY_0015;
0017-18; 0023. Defendant has provided the name of the entity. Nothing further is required to respond to the
interrogatory as framed.
As to SIN
Nos. 9 and 10, Defendant, again, responds by merely referring Plaintiff to
documents that can be identified by bates number. Therefore, the request to
compel further response to SIN Nos. 9 and 10 is GRANTED.
As to SIN No.
11, Defendant objected to this interrogatory as it is vague, ambiguous, and
unintelligible as the Consumer Legal Remedies Act has over 50 subsections. The
Court finds Defendant’s objection persuasive. Plaintiff failed to provide subsections
of the CLRA until the separate statement. Further, without waiving its
objections, Defendant also responded to SIN No. 11 as follows: “Responding
Party took the car on consignment from Real Legit Auto Group. Responding Party
only had permission to sell the vehicle at auction and submit paperwork
concerning the vehicle to the CA DMV. Responding Party did not compete unfairly
nor did it engage in deceptive acts or practices. All title issues with the
vehicle that Plaintiff bought, upon information and belief, were due to Real
Legit Auto Group or the previous owner where it purchased the vehicle from
(Ontario Hyundai). Responding Party will likely be filing a cross-complaint
against Real Legit Auto Group for indemnity based on the CA Veh. Code.” (SIN
SS, p. 8:1-7.) The Court finds Defendant’s response addresses this special
interrogatory as it provides facts supporting Defendant’s contention that it
did not violate the CLRA. Therefore, the request to compel further response to
SIN No. 11 is DENIED.
The request
to compel further response to SIN No. 14 is DENIED for similar reasons
as SIN No. 11.
The request
to compel further response to SIN No. 20 is DENIED. Contrary to
Plaintiff’s argument, this special interrogatory does not require Defendant to “…
state all facts, identify all individuals, and identify all documents it
believes have knowledge of facts it believes support its contention….”(SIN SS,
p. 12:26-28.) Further, Plaintiff’s argument refers to Defendant’s initial
response rather than the further response that was provided.
Lastly, the request
to compel further response to SIN No. 26 is DENIED as Defendant stated
that it would provide a further supplemental response.
Plaintiff has not requested monetary sanctions in connection with this
motion and the Court declines to award such.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses from
Defendant to Special Interrogatories, is
GRANTED
IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
The request
to compel further response to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories, Set One,
Nos. 1,2, 6, 7, 11, 14, 20, and 26 is DENIED.
The request
to compel further response to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories, Set One,
Nos. is 9, and 10 is GRANTED.
Defendant is
ordered to serve further responses within 30 days of this ruling.