PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SANCTIONS FOR DEFENDANT’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH CCP § 871.26
LAW AND MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS DATE: JUNE 9, 2026 TIME: 8:30 A.M.
8. Any work performed by any party along the area of the granted easement shall be performed by licensed contractors with appropriate insurance coverage.
9. Benson agrees to consult with their contractors to address any potential privacy concerns raised by the use of security cameras.
10. Benson permits Nixon to install garden items on the Nixon side of the shared backyard fence.
11. Nixon may install a gate that attached [sic] to the Benson fence post.
12. This agreement with be further memorialized in a written settlement agreement with appropriate documents.1
13. This agreement is meant to bind the parties and is enforceable in court per CCP Section 664.6.
Moving party to file entry of dismissal no later than July 10, 2026.
No. 25CV03559
ROCHA, et al. v. FCA US LLC
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SANCTIONS FOR DEFENDANT’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH CCP § 871.26
The motion is denied.
I. BACKGROUND Plaintiffs Leslie Rocha and Carlos Aguilar purchased a new 2025 Jeep Grand Cherokee, manufactured by defendant FCA US LLC. Plaintiffs allege that the vehicle suffers from unspecified defects and nonconformities that substantially impair the use, value and/or safety of the vehicle. (Compl. ¶ 17.) Plaintiffs allege they presented the vehicle for various repairs, but FCA could not remedy the defects and failed to repurchase or replace the vehicle. (Compl. ¶¶ 19- 22.) Plaintiffs allege two causes of action for violations of the Song-Beverly Act.
II. LEGAL STANDARDS
1 This provision is unnecessary considering the parties have already executed a settlement document.
LAW AND MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS DATE: JUNE 9, 2026 TIME: 8:30 A.M.
When a civil action seeks restitution or replacement of a motor vehicle under the Song Beverly Act (Act), “[w]ithin 60 days after the filing of the answer or other responsive pleading, all parties shall, without awaiting a discovery request, provide all other parties an initial disclosure and documents” which includes the manufacturer’s production of “[w]arranty policies and procedure manuals,” and “[i]f a pre-suit restitution or replacement request is made, the manufacturer’s written statement of policies and procedures used to evaluate customer requests for restitution or replacement pursuant to ‘Lemon Law’ claims.” (See
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
The Act also requires parties to participate in mediation within 150 days and conduct initial depositions within 120 days, not to exceed two hours, of plaintiff and defendant. All other discovery is stayed. (§ 871.26, subd. (c), (d), (e).) The statute expressly limits deposition topics for defendants.
Those topics include:
(1) All warranties that accompanied the plaintiff’s motor vehicle at the time of purchase or lease.
(2) Questions relating to the nature and extent of the entire service history, warranty history, and repairs relating to the motor vehicle.
(3) Questions relating to recalls applicable to the motor vehicle.
(4) Questions relating to a reasonable number of Technical Service Bulletins or Information Service Bulletins reasonably related to the nonconformities pertaining to the motor vehicle.
(5) Questions relating to relevant diagnostic procedures consulted and followed while diagnosing the plaintiff’s concerns for the motor vehicle.
(6) Questions relating to relevant repair procedures consulted and followed during the repairs for the motor vehicle.
(7) Questions relating to relevant communications between the plaintiff and defendant regarding the motor vehicle.
(8) Questions relating to relevant communications between the defendant and any dealership or other third parties regarding the motor vehicle.
2 All future statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure, unless otherwise stated.
LAW AND MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS DATE: JUNE 9, 2026 TIME: 8:30 A.M.
(9) If a pre-suit restitution or replacement request was made, questions relating to why the defendant did not replace the motor vehicle or provide restitution.
(10) If a pre-suit restitution or replacement request was made, any nonprivileged evaluation prepared by the manufacturer.
(11) If a pre-suit restitution or replacement request was made, the manufacturer’s policies and procedures regarding the restitution or replacement of vehicles in response to a consumer’s request for restitution or replacement under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, in effect from the date of the notice of the consumer’s request for restitution or replacement of the vehicle to the present, and any changes thereto.
(§ 871.26, subd. (i)(1)-(11).)
Sanctions are specified in the code. For failure to comply with deposition provisions, a court shall impose $2,500.00 against defense counsel, payable within 15 days, unless the party failing to comply shows good cause. (§ 871.26, subd. (j).)
III. DISCUSSION Plaintiffs move solely for sanctions of $2,500.00 arguing defendant’s PMQ David Case was unqualified to testify as to categories 9-11. Plaintiffs complain that Mr. Case had no knowledge of plaintiffs’ specific repurchase request (and the communications between plaintiffs and defendant related to it) or how it was handled, could not explain defendant’s practices or policies related to buyback request communications or the buyback evaluation process, did not know the training of employees who handle buyback requests, and could not describe how any FCA employee analyzes buyback requests.
However, at the time of the deposition, defendant had no record of plaintiffs’ buyback communication; in fact, it was not in defendant’s system, had not been produced by defendant in its initial disclosures, and plaintiffs had not yet served their initial disclosures in which their buyback email was contained. (McKay Decl. ¶ 8; Meagle Decl., Ex. 4 at pp. 51, 57.) Defendant further argues that the PMQ’s lack of information related to defendant’s buyback policies was not incomplete or inadequate since defendant treats buybacks on a case-by-case basis without a formal written policy. (Meagle Decl., Ex. 4 at pp. 63, 65, 66)
Plaintiffs interestingly do not seek to compel any further or different PMQ deposition. They also failed to object at the time of the deposition to any of the PMQ’s responses and made no record that any responses were incomplete, inadequate or failed to comply with section 871.26 or that Mr. Case was not competent to testify to any category. (Meagle Declaration, Exhibit 4.) Plaintiffs also failed to meet and confer prior to bringing this motion, instead choosing to stay silent from the deposition date of January 30, 2026, to April 10, 2026, when they filed this motion. (McKay Decl. ¶¶ 10-12.)
LAW AND MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS DATE: JUNE 9, 2026 TIME: 8:30 A.M.
Based on the Court’s review of the PMQ deposition, it does not find that defendant failed to comply with the requirements of section 871.26, subd. (i)(1)-(11), and therefore sanctions are not warranted.
No. 19CV03844
MLYNAR v CEA
JOHN MARC DOBRIN, APC’S MOTION TO STRIKE PURSUANT TO CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 425.16
MILANFAR LAW FIRM, PC’S MOTION TO STRIKE PURSUANT TO CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 425.16
MILANFAR LAW FIRM, PC’S MOTION TO STRIKE PURSUANT TO CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTIONS 435 AND 436
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR TRIAL PREFERENCE
As discussed below, the special motions to strike are granted. Milanfar’s motion to strike pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 435 and 436 is granted in part.
I. BACKGROUND AND COMPLAINT
The underlying case was an insurance bad faith claim brought by Mlynar against CEA, CSAA, and Ronald Cook. Mlynar retained numerous counsel to represent her during the pendency of this suit. CEA and CSAA settled with Mlynar and interpleaded the confidential settlement funds with the Court. CEA and CSAA were dismissed from the case with prejudice in May 2025, leaving the issue of disbursement of the funds in dispute between Mlynar and her prior counsel, including Law Offices of Jon-Marc Dobrin (“JMD”) and Milanfar Law Firm (“Milanfar”). On March 10 and 12, 2025, JMD and Milanfar filed notices of liens for outstanding fees.
On June 26, 2025, Mlynar filed a first amended interpleader complaint (“FAIC”) for distribution of the interpled proceeds, alleging 12 causes of action against her former counsel and other claimants, including: JMD and Milanfar. The 12 causes of actions are: (1) declaratory relief pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1060, (2) equitable indemnity; (3) professional negligence; (4) breach of fiduciary duty; (5) breach of contract; (6) conversion; (7) financial elder abuse; (8) voidability of contract pursuant to Civil Code section 1689; (9) undue influence and duress pursuant to Civil Code section 1569; (10) violation of attorney duties pursuant to