Motion to Compel Plaintiffs' Deposition and Request for Sanctions
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
ZHOU, et al., Case No.: CIVSB2402822 Plaintiffs, [TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S v. MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFFS’ DEPOSITION AND FCA US LLC, et al., AWARDING SANCTIONS AGAINST PLAINTIFFS Defendants.
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Complaint’s Allegations
This is a lemon law case brought pursuant to the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act
(the Act). On January 12, 2024, plaintiffs Kevin Zhou on behalf of Speed 3X Inc. (Zhou) and
Irving Quintana (collectively, Plaintiffs) initiated the instant action against defendants FCA US
LLC (FCA or Defendant); Oremor of Fontana, LLC dba Fontana Chrysler Jeep RAM and Does
1-10. The operative Complaint alleges three causes of action for: (1) violation of the Act- breach
of express warranty, (2) violation of the Act- breach of implied warranty, and (3) negligent
repair.
Plaintiffs allege on October 12, 2022, they entered into a warranty contract with FCA
regarding a 2022 Dodge RAM 2500. FCA issued a basic warranty that included bumper-to-
bumper coverage for defects in materials and workmanship for the earlier of 36 Months (3 years)
or 36,000 miles, a Drivetrain/Powertrain Warranty that covered defects in materials and
workmanship for the earlier of 60 Months (5 years) or 60,000, and a California Emissions
Warranty that covered defects in materials and workmanship in emissions parts for the earlier of
7 years or 70,000 miles. Plaintiffs further allege defects and nonconformities to the warranty
manifested themselves within the applicable express warranty period. The instant action ensued.
B. Pending Motion
On May 18, 2026, FCA filed the instant Motion to Compel Plaintiffs’ Deposition
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?”
Plaintiffs filed an Opposition to the Motion on July 8, 2026, along with a declaration from
Matias Leite (Leite). Plaintiffs filed an Amended Opposition to the Motion (Opposition) on July
10, 2026, along with an amended declaration from Leite. After issuing a tentative ruling and
holding a hearing on the motion, the Court now issues its final ruling.1
II. EXPLANATION OF THE COURT’S DECISION FCA moves pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 2025.450(a) for an order
compelling Plaintiffs to appear for a deposition. FCA contends it served Plaintiffs with an initial
notice of deposition on November 24, 2025, and subsequently sent two amended notices for
deposition dates that did not move forward as Plaintiffs’ availability could not be confirmed.
FCA also requests sanctions of $3,150.00 against Plaintiffs and their counsel of record pursuant
to Code of Civil Procedure sections 2025.450(g), 2023.010 and 2023.030.
In their Opposition, Plaintiffs contend the delay has not been due to willful non-
compliance, but due to “extraordinary circumstances” surrounding the deterioration of the
1 The Court finds that the moving party has complied with its meet-and-confer obligation.
attorney-client relationship that has necessitated Plaintiffs’ counsel to file motions to withdraw as
counsel. Plaintiffs request the court decline to impose sanctions as counsel acted with substantial
justification and continued to communicate with FCA’s counsel as to the subject scheduling
issues.
The Court GRANTS FCA’s Motion. Preliminarily, the instant Motion pertains only to
FCA’s notice of deposition and is not requesting that the Court compel Plaintiffs to produce any
documents.
As to the initial notice of deposition, Plaintiffs objected solely on the grounds that it was
unilaterally noticed for a date and time they were unavailable. Unavailability is not a valid
statutory objection under Code of Civil Procedure Section 2025.410, which requires objections
to be grounded in procedural defects such as improper service, location, or timing. (Code Civ.
Proc., § 2025.410, subd. (a); Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.220 et seq.) It is noted that the initial notice
of deposition was served back in November of 2025 and as such, the subject depositions have
been pending for over six months.
Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS FCA’s motion to compel a deposition from
the Plaintiffs. As to the issue of sanctions, the Court GRANTS FCA’s request for sanctions
against Plaintiffs, but at a reduced amount. As set forth in the declaration of Rafter, FCA
requests 10.3 hours of attorney time billed at $300/hour as well as the $60 filing fee. Given the
lack of complexity as to the legal matter at hand, the Court awards $1,560, which consists of 5
hours of attorney time at counsel’s regular rate and the $60 filing fee. The Court awards
sanctions only against Plaintiffs because, given the circumstances, awarding sanctions against
counsel would be unjust.
III. CONCLUSION
FCA’s motion to compel a deposition from Plaintiffs is GRANTED. Plaintiffs are
ordered to make themselves available for a deposition within 14 days of the Court’s order.
The Court further GRANTS FCA’s request for sanctions of $1,560 against Plaintiffs
only, as distinguished from Plaintiffs’ counsel. The sanctions are to be paid within 14 days of the
Court’s order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: [TENTATIVE – NOT FINAL] Hon. Joseph B. Widman Judge of the Superior Court