Cammack v. General Motors LLC

The Case Management Conference scheduled for July 10, 2026 is VACATED. An Status Conference re Arbitration is scheduled for June 11, 2027, at 9:30 a.m.

Defendant shall give notice of this ruling. 4 The Irvine Plaintiff The Irvine Company LLC’s unopposed motion for leave Company LLC v. to file the Second Amended Complaint is GRANTED. Taquiero Taco, LLC The motion complies with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324, and there was no prejudicial delay. (Code of Civ. Proc. § 473, subd. (a)(1); Atkinson v. Elk Corp. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 739, 761 [applying “a policy of great liberality in permitting amendments”]; see also Declaration of Ernie Zachary Park ¶¶ 4-7.)

The Court deems the filing of the Second Amended Complaint on March 17, 2026 to be proper. (ROA 141.) Plaintiff shall serve the SAC in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure section 415.10 et. seq.

Counsel for Plaintiff shall give notice. 5 Cammack v. Before the Court is the Motion For Compliance Pursuant to General Motors LLC C.C.P. § 871.26, filed on 3/23/26 by Defendant General Motors LLC (“GM”).

Plaintiff Chad Cammack (“Plaintiff”) asserts that he has now complied with the disclosure requirements at issue, which GM does not dispute on reply. The Motion therefore appears to be MOOT, except as to the issue of sanctions.

Sanctions are clearly warranted here under C.C.P. § 871.26(j). Although Plaintiff asserts that there was some early uncertainty as to the application of §871.26 due to the opt-in provision that became effective on 4/1/25, there was no valid basis for uncertainty by the time GM filed its responsive pleading on 7/11/25. Plaintiff thus had 60 days from 7/11/25 to comply with C.C.P. § 871.26(f) and (g). Plaintiff failed to do so. (Lasater Decl., ¶ 6; Perks Decl. ¶ 7, Ex. 1.) Sanctions in the amount of $1,500 are therefore imposed under C.C.P. § 871.26(j), on Strategic Legal Practices, APC, to be paid to GM, through its counsel of record, within 15 days.

GM is to give notice of this ruling. 6 Johnson v. Hyundai The Motion to Compel Binding Arbitration, filed on 3/16/26 by Motor America Defendant Hyundai Motor America (HMA) is DENIED.

HMA has failed to show that the parties entered into a valid agreement to arbitrate here. HMA asserts that Plaintiff Alyssa Johnson (Plaintiff) agreed to arbitrate because HMA included an arbitration provision in its “Owner’s Handbook & Warranty Information” (Warranty) for the vehicle. (Ameripour Decl., ¶ 4 and Ex. 2.) But HMA has not shown that the Warranty reflects an actual agreement with Plaintiff: HMA does not present any