Johnson vs. General Motors LLC

Defendant moves for an order for compliance requiring Plaintiff Joel Johnson to appear for his initial depositions under Code of Civil Procedure section 871.26, subdivision (c)(1), and for the imposition of sanctions against Plaintiff’s counsel in the amount of $1,500 as required under Code of Civil Procedure section 871.26, subdivision (j)(2).

Deposition

Code of Civil Procedure section 871.26 applies to a civil action brought against a manufacturer seeking restitution or replacement of a motor vehicle pursuant to subdivision (b) or (d) of Section 1793.2, Section 1793.22, or Section 1794 of the Civil Code, or for civil penalties pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 1794 of the Civil Code, where the request for restitution or replacement is based on noncompliance with the applicable express warranty. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 871.20(a), 871.26(a).) Section 871.26 applies to a civil action filed on or after January 1, 2025. (Code Civ. Proc. § 871.26(l).)

Section 871.29(a)(1) provides the procedure for a manufacturer to elect to be governed by the chapter, which includes the manufacturer’s electing “by October 31 of the preceding calendar year, except as provided in Section 871.30.” Section 871.29(b) further clarifies: “Unless a manufacturer has made the election described in subdivision (a) that covers a given year, Sections 871.20 to 871.28, inclusive, shall not apply to an action described in subdivision (a) of Section 871.20 with respect to all of the manufacturer’s motor vehicles sold during that year, except as provided in Section 871.30.”

Section 871.30, in turn, provides that: “Within 30 days of the effective date of the act adding this section [which was April 2, 2025], a manufacturer may elect to be governed by this chapter for all actions described in subdivision (a) of Section 871.20 with respect to all of its motor vehicles sold in the year 2025 and in all prior years by providing written notice of that election to the Arbitration Certification Program within the Department of Consumer Affairs.” In other words, the Legislature explicitly provided a procedure by which manufacturers such as Defendant could elect to apply the statutory procedures retroactively to all cases filed after January 1, 2025.

The Court takes judicial notice on its own volition that Defendant elected to be governed under the optional statutory framework of Sections 871.20 et seq. on 4/23/25, which was within the 30-day window provided by section 871.30. (Scott v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 743, 752.) (See Cal. Dep’t of Consumer Affs., Manufacturer Opt-in, https://www.dca.ca.gov/acp/accepted_manufacturers.shtml).)

Plaintiffs commenced the instant action on 3/07/25, and is one for restitution or replacement of a motor vehicle brought against Defendant, 27

the alleged manufacturer, and includes a claim pursuant to Civil Code section 1793.2, subdivision (d), as well as a claim for civil penalties pursuant to Civil Code section 1794, subdivision (c) based on alleged noncompliance with the applicable express warranty. (Complaint, ¶¶ 27- 29.)

Code of Civil Procedure section 871.26, subdivision (c) states:

(c) Within 120 days after the filing of the answer or other responsive pleading, all parties have the right to conduct initial depositions, each not to exceed two hours of the following deponents: (1) The plaintiff. (2) The defendant, and if the defendant is not a natural person, the person who is most qualified to testify on the defendant's behalf. This deposition shall be limited to the topics listed in subdivision (i).

(Code Civ. Proc. § 871.26, subd. (c).)

Defendant states that it filed its demurrer to the complaint on July 11, 2025. (Mvg. Haro Decl., ¶ 3). With its demurrer, Defendant served a meet and confer letter, that issued a notice for Plaintiff to appear for a deposition under section 871.26(c). (Id., ¶ 4 & Ex. A). The letter specifically informed Plaintiff that “[t]hese depositions are to be completed no later than 120 days after the filing of the answer or responsive pleading.” (Id.) Defendant also attached a notice of deposition, setting Plaintiff’s deposition for July 29, 2025. (Id., ¶ 5 & Ex. B). The statutory deadline for Plaintiff to conduct the deposition was November 7, 2025. (Id., ¶ 11). As of the date of the motion, Plaintiff’s deposition has still not been conducted.

In opposition, Plaintiff’s counsel states that on June 19, 2026, Plaintiff’s counsel offered deposition dates for August 5, 10, and 11, 2026. (Opp. Smith Decl., ¶ 4 and & Ex. 1). Even though Plaintiff did not meet the statutory deadlines, Plaintiff contends that it has shown good cause as Plaintiff is now willing to cooperate and has offered dates.

The court finds that, on this record, Plaintiff has admittedly failed to comply with the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 871.26, subdivision (c)(1). Plaintiff’s offered dates on June 19, 2026 (Opp. Smith Decl., ¶ 4), over six months after the November 7, 2025 statutory deadline to do so and two months after this motion was filed. Plaintiff’s counsel has offered no justifiable reason for such a delay and/or failure to comply with section 871.26(c)(1). Indeed, as of the date of this hearing, Plaintiff’s deposition still has not been “conducted” as required by section 871.26(c)(1), as Plaintiff has offered dates in August 2026.

For these reasons, the motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to appear for a deposition within 15 days of this order and/or at mutually agreeable date and time.

Sanctions

Code of Civil Procedure section 871.26, subdivision (j) states in part:

(j) Unless the party failing to comply with this section shows good cause, notwithstanding any other law and in addition to any other sanctions imposed pursuant to this chapter, a court shall impose sanctions as follows: [¶.] (2) A one-thousand-five-hundred-dollar ($1,500) sanction against the plaintiff's attorney or two-thousand-five-hundred-dollar ($2,500) sanction against the defense attorney respectively, paid within 15 business days for failure to comply with the provisions relating to depositions as prescribed in subdivision (c). (3) For a plaintiff's repeated noncompliance with subdivision (b), (c), or (d), a court shall order the case dismissed without prejudice and the plaintiff's attorney to be responsible for costs awarded to the manufacturer. Code Civ. Proc., § 871.26

(Code Civ. Proc. § 871.26, subd. (j)(2), (3).)

Plaintiff’s counsel has only stated that in June 19, 2026, Plaintiff’s counsel offered dates for depositions in August 2026. (Opp. Smith Decl., ¶ 4). Nowhere in Plaintiff’s counsel’s declaration has Plaintiff justifiably explain the failure to comply. There is no justification for the delays, despite Defendant’s already sending a meet/confer letter notifying Plaintiff of his obligations under section 871.26. Sanctions under section 871.26(j)(2) are, therefore, mandatory under the circumstances here.

Plaintiffs’ counsel, Strategic Legal Practices, APC, is ordered to pay monetary sanctions in the amount of $1,500 payable to Defendant within 30 days of the service of the notice of ruling.

Defendant to give notice. 5 Lopez vs. Cross Defendant FDK Enterprises LP A Calif Ltd Partnership Magellan Roads Apartments Management LLC dba Cross Roads Apartments moves for an order establishing the truth of each matter specified in the Request for Admissions, Set One, served on plaintiff Tina Lopez. For the following reasons, the motion is GRANTED.

Plaintiff shall pay monetary sanctions of $525 to Defendant by August 6, 2026.

A propounding party may ask the court for an order that deems admitted the matters contained in the requests for admission if the receiving party fails to respond to the requests for admission. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280(b).) The court shall grant the order unless it finds that the party to whom the requests were directed has served responses in substantial compliance with Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.220 before the hearing on the motion. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280(c).)

Defendant served the Requests for Admissions (Set One)) (“RFAs”) on Plaintiff on January 7, 2026. (Chang Dec.) By the time this motion was filed on March 9, 2026, Plaintiff had not responded to the RFAs. (Ibid.)

Pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280, the court shall grant the motion unless it finds that Plaintiff has served responses in “substantial compliance” with Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.220 before the hearing. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280(c).) Plaintiff did not oppose the motion and there is no evidence that Plaintiff served responses to the RFAs in substantial compliance with the Code. Thus, the recommendation is to grant the motion to the extent it seeks to deem the RFAs admitted.

Sanctions are mandatory for an outright failure to respond to requests for admission. (Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.280 (“It is mandatory that the court impose a monetary sanction ... on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely response to requests for admission necessitated this motion.”).)

Defendants seeks monetary sanctions of $804 to account for 2 hours to prepare the motion at an hourly rate of $186, 2 hours of anticipated time to review any opposition and draft a reply and appear at the hearing, and a filing fee of $60. Because the motion was not opposed (and thus no reply was necessary), the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to pay monetary sanctions of $525, calculated from 2.5 hours at $186/hour plus the $60 filing fee. Plaintiff shall pay the sanctions of $525 by August 6, 2026.

Defendant is ordered to give notice. 6 Pacific Sands LLC vs. Cross-Defendant Pacific Sands LLC (“Pacific Sands”) moves for Smith summary judgment on the Cross-Complaint filed by Cross-Complainant Nanette Smith (“Ms. Smith”). For the following reasons, the motion is GRANTED. The evidentiary objections filed by Pacific Sands are OVERRULED.

A defendant seeking summary judgment bears the burden of persuasion and burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence to negate the plaintiff’s claim. It may do this by demonstrating the claim has no merit, that the plaintiff cannot prove an element of the claim, or that the defendant has a complete defense entitling it to judgment as a matter of

30