WILLIAMS vs GENERAL MOTORS, LLC., et al.

A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.

Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver

25CV002155: WILLIAMS vs GENERAL MOTORS, LLC., et al. 02/09/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other for Compliance Pursuant to C.C.P. 871.26 in Department 25

and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant’s Notice of Motion does not provide notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system, as required by Local Rule 1.06(D). Defendant’s counsel is directed to contact opposing counsel forthwith to advise counsel of Local Rule 1.06 and the Court’s tentative ruling procedure. If Defendant’s counsel is unable to contact opposing counsel prior to the hearing, Defendant’s counsel shall be available at the hearing, in person or remotely (telephonically or by video conference via Zoom as stated in the introductory notice to today’s tentative rulings), in the event opposing counsel appears without following the procedures set forth in Local Rule 1.06(B).

Defendant General Motors LLC’s (“Defendant”) Motion to Compel Plaintiff Darell Williams’ (“Plaintiff”) Compliance with Production of Documents Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 871.26 by is ruled upon as follows.

Factual Background

This is a lemon law/Song-Beverly Act action. Plaintiff filed his complaint on January 24, 2025, alleging five causes of action which are based upon California’s lemon law statute, the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, and for fraudulent inducement-concealment. Defendant filed its demurrer to the Complaint on May 23, 2025, which was overruled in its entirety on January 5, 2026. Defendant filed its answer on January 8, 2026.

According to the Notice of Motion, Plaintiff has failed to produce all of the documents specified in Code of Civil Procedure section 871.26 subdivisions (b) and (f). Defendant now moves to compel compliance with the provisions of section 871.26(b) and (f) along with a mandatory award of monetary sanctions pursuant to section 871.26(j)(1). Plaintiff opposes, arguing that section 871.26 does not apply to the instant action and that Plaintiff has further produced all required initial disclosures. (Dias Decl., ¶ 9.)

Discussion

Section 871.26(b) requires: “Within 60 days after the filing of the answer or other responsive pleading, all parties shall, without awaiting a discovery request, provide to all

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV002155: WILLIAMS vs GENERAL MOTORS, LLC., et al. 02/09/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other for Compliance Pursuant to C.C.P. 871.26 in Department 25

other parties an initial disclosure and documents pursuant to subdivisions (f), (g), and (h).”

Pertinent here, subdivision (f) states:

(f) The plaintiff shall provide the following documents to all other parties pursuant to the timeline set forth in subdivision (b): (1) Sales or lease agreement. (2) Copy of current registration. (3) Any finance information, account information, including payment history and estimated payoff amount, and any loan modification agreements. (4) Any repair orders, including to third-party repair facilities or the location of where information relating to repair orders may be found. (5) Documents detailing all underlying claimed incidental damages. (6) Information pertaining to the market value of the motor vehicle that is currently in the consumer’s possession. (7) Any written, pre-suit communications with the manufacturer, including, but not limited to, any restitution or replacement request.

(Code Civ. Proc., §§ 871.26 (f).)

At the time Section 871.20 became effective, on January 1, 2025, it provided:

(a) Notwithstanding any other law, this chapter applies to an action 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.

This was the version of the statute that was applicable at the time Plaintiff filed this action in January 2025.

On April 2, 2025, Section 871.20 was amended to limit the statute's application to an action “brought against a manufacturer who has elected under Section 871.29 to proceed under this chapter.” On April 23, 2025, Defendant opted-in, and elected to proceed under Section 871.20. (Dias Decl., ¶ 6.)

As of May 23, 2025, this action was “an action seeking restitution or replacement of a motor vehicle, brought against a manufacturer who has elected under Section 871.29 to

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV002155: WILLIAMS vs GENERAL MOTORS, LLC., et al. 02/09/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other for Compliance Pursuant to C.C.P. 871.26 in Department 25

proceed under this chapter.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 871.20(a).)

Applicability of Statute

Plaintiff argues that “the procedural protections of § 871.26 are conditioned on the defendant manufacturer having made a valid election to be governed by the chapter— which had not happened when this action was filed on January 24, 2025. GMs opt-in did not occur until April 23, 2025. Retroactive application would violate due process by imposing new obligations without fair notice, contravening express statutory limits and the presumption against retroactivity.” (Opposition, 1:9-14.)

The Court finds this argument unavailing. Plaintiff was on notice at the time of the filing of this action in January 2025 that Code of Civil Procedure section 871.20(a) applied and the corresponding production and disclosures were mandatory. Although the statute was amended in April to limit applicability to cases in which the defendant opts in, Defendant did opt in on April 23, 2025, prior to filing its demurrer in this case. So, Plaintiff was on notice, prior to the filing of Defendant's responsive pleading, that he would need to abide by the statute's requirements and produce the required documents and disclosures within sixty days of the filing of the responsive pleading. Applying the statute to this action does not require the Court to apply the statute retroactively.

The statute is applicable to this action, and Plaintiff was required to provide the necessary production and disclosures within sixty days of the filing of Defendant's answer. Plaintiff failed to do so until after Defendant filed the instant motion.

The Court must reject the opposition's suggestion that this motion is rendered moot by the service of the statutory production and disclosures. Code of Civil Procedure section 1005.5 specifically provides that a motion is deemed made at the time it is filed and served and, in this case, the disclosures were not served until September 15, 2025, after the present motion was filed was filed on September 12, 2025. Thus, this motion cannot be considered moot within the meaning of section 1005.5.

Defendant's motion to compel compliance is GRANTED.

Sanctions

In the event that a plaintiff fails to timely provide these disclosures and/or documents, Code of Civil Procedure section 871.26(j) requires the Court to sanction the plaintiff's counsel $1,500.00 for failure to comply with the production requirements:

(j) Unless the party failing to comply with this section shows good cause,

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV002155: WILLIAMS vs GENERAL MOTORS, LLC., et al. 02/09/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other for Compliance Pursuant to C.C.P. 871.26 in Department 25

notwithstanding any other law and in addition to any other sanctions imposed pursuant to this chapter, a court shall impose sanctions as follows: (1) 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 document production requirements as prescribed in subdivision (b).

(Code Civ. Proc., § 871.26, subd. (j)(1).)

Plaintiff argues that sanctions are “especially improper here, where the laws applicability was unclear at filing, providing no notice to Plaintiff.” (Opposition, 1:14-16.) Plaintiff also states that they have now provided all documents and information required under the statute. (Dias Decl., ¶ 9.)

The Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to show good cause for his failure to comply. Though not required to do so, Defendant met and conferred with Plaintiff in an attempt to avoid the filing of this motion, and Plaintiff still refused to comply.

Disposition

The Court concludes that Plaintiff failed to timely comply with the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 871.26 (f) and (g). Defendant's motion to compel compliance is GRANTED. To the extent any such production and disclosures have not been completed, Plaintiff is ordered to produce all such documents and disclosures no later than February 19, 2026.

Defendant's request for sanctions in the amount of $1,500 against Plaintiff's attorney is GRANTED and must be paid within 15 business days. (Code Civ. Proc., § 871.26, subd. (j)(1).)

The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312 or further notice is required.