Judge: Wesley L. Hsu, Case: 22PSCV00570, Date: 2023-05-08 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22PSCV00570 Hearing Date: May 8, 2023 Dept: L
The hearing on Plaintiffs Hazelle Nunez’s and Ramiro
Nunez’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Plaintiffs’ Request for
Production of Documents is CONTINUED to July 31, 2023 at 9:30 a.m. [see
below].
Background
Plaintiffs Hazelle Nunez and Ramiro Nunez (together, “Plaintiffs”) allege as follows:
On or about May 7, 2019, Plaintiffs entered into a warranty contract with Defendant FCA US, LLC (“FCA”) regarding a 2019 FCA (Chrysler) Pacifica Hybrid, VIN #2C4RCLN74KR681721 (“subject vehicle”). Plaintiffs delivered the subject vehicle to Defendant Puente Hills Chrysler Dodge Jeep Ram (“Puente Hills”) for substantial repair on at least one occasion. The subject vehicle suffers from transmission, engine and electrical defects which have not been adequately repaired.
1.
Violation of Subdivision (d) of Civil Code Section
1793.2
2.
Violation of Subdivision (b) of Civil Code Section
1793.2
3.
Violation of Subdivision (a)(3) of Civil Code Section
1793.2
4.
Breach of the Implied Warranty of Merchantability
5.
Negligent Repair
Discussion
Plaintiffs move the court for an order to strike out FCA’s objections and compel FAC’s further responses to Plaintiffs’ Request for Production of Documents, Set One, Nos. 1, 3, 7, 19, 22, 28, 29, 31, 41, 46, 47, 49, 59, 63, 65, 67, 71, 78, 84, 89, 90, 91, 100, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 110, 111, 112, 113, and 114. Plaintiffs further seek sanctions in the amount of $5,950.00.
The court will continue the hearing on the above motion to July 31, 2023 at 9:30 a.m. The court notes that on February 9, 2023, FCA and Puente Hills each filed a motion to compel arbitration and stay action; said motions are currently set for hearing on June 7, 2023. The instant motion was filed on April 4, 2023.
FCA asserts that the hearing on the instant motion is subject to a mandatory stay imposed by operation of Coe of Civil Procedure § 1281.4; Plaintiffs, in turn, offer up no opposition in this regard. The court agrees with FCA’s position. Code of Civil Procedure § 1281.4 provides, in relevant part, that “[i]f an application has been made to a court of competent jurisdiction, whether in this State or not, for an order to arbitrate a controversy which is an issue involved in an action or proceeding pending before a court of this State and such application is undetermined, the court in which such action or proceeding is pending shall, upon motion of a party to such action or proceeding, stay the action or proceeding until the application for an order to arbitrate is determined and, if arbitration of such controversy is ordered, until an arbitration is had in accordance with the order to arbitrate or until such earlier time as the court specifies.”
“An application for an order to arbitrate is enough to compel a stay of the legal proceedings.” (Seidman & Seidman v. Wolfson (1975) 50 Cal.App.3d 826, 833.) Code of Civil Procedure § 1281.4 “is clear and unambiguous: it requires that the trial court stay an action pending before it while an application to arbitrate the subject matter of the action is pending in a court of competent jurisdiction.” (Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. v. Superior Court (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 188, 192 [emphasis added].)
The matter, then, is ordered stayed pending resolution of the motions to compel arbitration.