Judge Virginia Keeny, Case Number: 23STCV30111, Date: 2025-02-04 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Virginia Keeny, Case: 23STCV30111, Date: 2025-02-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV30111 Hearing Date: February 4, 2025 Dept: 45

EDUARD SHENBERGER V. HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA

MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE;

MOTION TO DEEM MATTERS ADMITTED IN REQUEST FOR ADMISSION, SET ONE

Date of Hearing: February 4, 2025 Trial Date: October 10, 2025

Department: 45 Case No: 23STCV30111

Moving Party: Plaintiff Eduard Shenberger

Responding Party: Defendant Hyundai Motor America

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

This action arises from the sale and purchase of an allegedly defective 2023 Hyundai Palisade. On December 8, 2023, Plaintiff Eduard Shenberger (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants Hyundai Motor America (“Defendant”) and Does 1-20, inclusive, alleging causes of action for: (1) Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability under The Song-Beverly Act and (2) Breach of Express Warranty under The Song-Beverly Act.

On April 5, 2024, Defendant filed an answer to the complaint.

On July 26, 2024, Plaintiff filed and served the following two motions: (1) a Motion to Compel Defendant’s Verified Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One (the “Special Interrogatories Motion”); and (2) a Motion to Deem Matters Admitted in Plaintiff’s Requests for Admission, Set One (the “RFAs Motion”) (collectively, the “Motions”).

On January 22, 2025, Defendant filed and served respective oppositions to the Motions.

The Court will address the Motions in this one ruling.

As of January 30, 2025, no reply brief has been filed. Any reply brief was required to have been filed and served at least five court days before the hearing. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1005, subd. (b).)

[TENTATIVE} RULING

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant’s Verified Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One (the “Special Interrogatories Motion”) and Motion to Deem Plaintiff’s Requests for Admission, Set One (the “RFAs Motion”) are GRANTED. Defendant is ORDERED to provide verified, complete, and code-compliant responses, without objections, to set one of Plaintiff’s special interrogatories within 30 days of the date of notice of this order. Plaintiff’s Requests for Admission, Set One, are deemed admitted.

LEGAL STANDARD

Within 30 days after service of interrogatories, the party to whom the interrogatories are propounded shall serve the original of the response to them on the propounding party, unless on motion of the propounding party the court has shortened the time for response, or unless on motion of the responding party the court has extended the time for response. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.260, subd. (a).) If the party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response, the party to whom the interrogatories are directed waives any right to exercise the option to produce writings under Section 2030.230, as well as any objection to the interrogatories, including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (a).) The party propounding interrogatories may move for an order compelling response to the interrogatories. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (b).)

Where there has been no timely response to a request for admissions under Code of Civ. Proc., § 2033.010, the propounding party may move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted, as well as for monetary sanctions.¿(Code of Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (b).)¿The party who has failed to respond waives any objections to the demand, unless the court grants that party relief from the waiver, upon a showing (1) that the party has subsequently served a substantially compliant response, and (2) that the party’s failure to respond was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect.¿(Code of Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (a)(1)-(2).)¿The court shall grant a motion to deem admitted requests for admissions, “unless it finds that the party to whom the requests for admission have been directed has served, before the hearing on the motion, a proposed response to the requests for admission that is in substantial compliance with Section 2033.220.”¿ (Code of Civ. Proc., § 2033.280, subd. (c).)

ANALYSIS

The Special Interrogatories Motion

In support of the Special Interrogatories Motion, Plaintiff’s counsel, Andrew P. Matera (“Matera”), provides a declaration. Defendant was served with a set of Special Interrogatories on May 6, 2024. (Matera Decl., ¶ 4; Exh. 1.) Defendant has failed to provide verified responses to such discovery despite Plaintiff providing a 30-day extension to respond to such discovery with a deadline of July 8, 2024. (Matera Decl., ¶¶ 5-8; Exh. 2.) Defendant has failed to provide verified responses to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories, Set One. (Matera Decl., ¶ 8.)

In opposition to the Special Interrogatories Motion, Defendant’s counsel, Bryan A. Reynolds (“Reynolds”), provides a declaration. Mr. Reynolds indicates that an extension to discovery was requested because himself and his partner supervising this matter, Carissa Casolari, were engaged in trial. (Reynolds Decl., ¶¶ 4-5.) The deadline to respond to discovery based on the extension granted by Plaintiff was not calendared due to mistake and excusable neglect as counsel was engaged in two separate trials during the time period in question. (Reynolds Decl., ¶¶ 7-8.) Counsel states that because he was engaged in trial, he “was not cognizant of the July 8, 2024 deadline to respond to [P]laintiff’s discovery when it passed, and as a result [he] was not able to timely prepare and serve responses to [P]laintiff’s discovery requests.” (Reynolds Decl., ¶ 7.)

Defendant has not provided responses to the discovery at issue. Although Defendant’s counsel attests that responses were not provided due to mistake and excusable neglect, it is undisputed that Defendant has not provided responses to the discovery at issue.

Here, Plaintiff propounded discovery on Defendant, to which Defendant has failed to respond. The Court therefore finds it appropriate to compel Defendant’s responses to set one of Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories.

The Special Interrogatories Motion is GRANTED. Defendant is ORDERED to provide verified, complete, and code-compliant responses, without objections, to set one of Plaintiff’s special interrogatories within 30 days of the date of notice of this order.

The RFAs Motion

In support of the RFAs Motion, Plaintiff’s counsel, Andrew P. Matera (“Matera”), provides a declaration. Defendant was served with a set of Requests for Admission on May 6, 2024. (Matera Decl., ¶ 4; Exh. 1.) Defendant has failed to provide verified responses to such discovery despite Plaintiff providing a 30-day extension to respond to such discovery with a deadline of July 8, 2024. (Matera Decl., ¶¶ 5-8; Exh. 2.) Defendant has failed to provide verified responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Admission, Set One. (Matera Decl., ¶ 8.)

In opposition to the RFAs Motion, Defendant’s counsel, Bryan A. Reynolds (“Reynolds”), provides a declaration. Mr. Reynolds indicates that an extension to discovery was requested because himself and his partner supervising this matter, Carissa Casolari, were engaged in trial. (Reynolds Decl., ¶¶ 4-5.) The deadline to respond to discovery based on the extension granted by Plaintiff was not calendared due to mistake and excusable neglect as counsel was engaged in two separate trials during the time period in question. (Reynolds Decl., ¶¶ 7-8.) Counsel states that because he was engaged in trial, he “was not cognizant of the July 8, 2024 deadline to respond to [P]laintiff’s discovery when it passed, and as a result [he] was not able to timely prepare and serve responses to [P]laintiff’s discovery requests.” (Reynolds Decl., ¶ 7.)

Defendant’s counsel concedes that it has not provided responses to the discovery at issue. Moreover, the opposition does not argue that responses have been provided. While Defendant’s counsel attests that responses were not provided due to mistake and excusable neglect, it is undisputed that Defendant has not provided responses to the discovery at issue.

Here, Plaintiff propounded discovery on Defendant, to which Defendant has failed to respond. The Court therefore finds it appropriate to deem admitted Plaintiff’s Requests for Admission, Set One.

The RFAs Motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s Requests for Admission, Set One, are deemed admitted.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the Special Interrogatories Motion and RFAs Motion are both GRANTED. Defendant is ORDERED to provide verified, complete, and code-compliant responses, without objections, to set one of Plaintiff’s special interrogatories within 30 days of the date of notice of this order. Plaintiff’s Requests for Admission are deemed admitted.