Defendant’s Motion to Compel Compliance with the December 11, 2025 Court Order; Defendant’s Motion to Compel Production of Plaintiff’s Vehicle for Inspection
(47) Tentative Ruling
Re: Marvin Gonzalez Colindres v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc. Superior Court Case No. 25CECG01016
Hearing Date: August 6, 2026 (Dept. 501)
Motions(x2): Defendant’s Motion to Compel Compliance with the December 11, 2025 Court Order Defendant’s Motion to Compel Production of Plaintiff’s Vehicle for Inspection
Tentative Ruling:
To find defendant’s motion to compel compliance with the December 11, 2025 Court Order is moot.
To grant defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc.’s motion to compel plaintiff Marvin Gonzales Colindres to present his 021 Honda Pilot, VIN: 5FNYF5H21MB030555, within 14 days of service of the order by the clerk.
To grant defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc.’s motion for sanctions in the reduced amount $1,285. Plaintiff Marvin Gonzales Colindres, and plaintiff’s counsel of record, Quill and Arrow, LLP, shall make payment to AHM’s counsel of record at Wilson Turner Losmo LLP, within 30 days of service of the order by the clerk.
If oral argument is timely requested, it will be entertained on Tuesday, August 11, 2026, at 3:30 p.m. in Department 501.
Explanation:
Compliance with December 11, 2025 Court Order
Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (“AHM” or “defendant”) filed this motion to compel plaintiff, Marvin Gonzales Colindres (“Colindres” or “plaintiff”) to comply with the December 11, 2025 Court Order.
AHM makes this motion, in accordance with the December 11, 2025 Court Order, for Colindres to produce further responses without objections to Special interrogatories, Form Interrogatories, and Request for Production, Set One, and failed to pay $1,990 in monetary sanctions as ordered in the Court’s order. However, this motion to compel compliance with respect to production is moot as Colindres has already provided the requested documents. (Cardenas Decl., Ex. 1.)
The only item outstanding from the December 11, 2025 Court Order is payment of sanctions. In Colindres’ opposition, filed June 12, 2026, their counsel represented that they mailed out the sum on June 12, 2026. (Cardenas Decl. Ex. 2.) Nevertheless, AHM’s counsel 12
represents that as of June 16, 2026, AHM’s counsel has still not received the amount. (Ucciferri Decl., ¶¶ 2-3.)
Even assuming arguendo that AHM’s counsel still has not received the amount, failure to pay monetary sanctions is not a basis and does not warrant additional sanctions. (See e.g.,
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?”
Accordingly, this motion is moot.
Production of Plaintiff’s Vehicle for Inspection
AHM originally noticed the inspection of Colindres’ 2021 Honda Pilot, VIN: 5FNYF5H21MB030555 (“Subject Vehicle”) on May 14, 2025, to proceed on June 26, 2025. (Sadanaga Decl., ¶2, Ex. A). On June 20, 2025, Plaintiff served untimely Objections to AHM’s Demand for Vehicle Inspection. Plaintiff’s objection stated Plaintiff’s counsel will not be appearing for the vehicle inspection as presently noticed. “Plaintiff requests that Defendant and Defendant’s counsel consider the following alternative dates: January 12, 2026, January 14, 2026, or January 15, 2026.” (Sadanaga Decl., ¶ 3, Ex. B). On June 30, 2025, AHM’s counsel stated “we have received Plaintiff’s objections to AHM’s demand for vehicle inspection. Based on Plaintiff’s objection, we will take January 15, 2026. We will send amended notice shortly.” (Sadanaga Decl. ¶ 4, Ex. C).
On September 19, 2025, AHM served an Amended Demand for Vehicle Inspection to be conducted at Selma Honda located at 2705 Auto Mall Dr., Selma, CA 93662 on January 15, 2026. (Sadanaga Decl., ¶ 5, Ex. D).
On January 9, 2026, Plaintiff once again objected to AHM's Amended Demand for Vehicle Inspection. Plaintiff’s objection stated Plaintiff’s counsel will not be “Plaintiff requests that Defendant meet and confer with Plaintiff’s counsel in order to schedule the vehicle inspection on a mutually agreeable date.” (Sadanaga Decl. ¶ 6, Ex. E). On January 9, 2026, AHM’s counsel stated, “AHM has received Plaintiff’s objections to the amended demand for vehicle inspection. This date was previously agreed upon on June 30, 2025. In fact, it was a date that Plaintiff offered in its objection to the original demand for vehicle inspection. Nonetheless, please provide a date for the vehicle inspection to be completed no later than 1/19/26.” (Sadanaga Decl. ¶ 7, Ex. F). This email was ignored. (Id.)
A party may inspect land or other property in possession, custody, or control of any other party to the action. (Code Civ. Proc., §2031.010, subd. (a).) A party may move to compel further responses to an inspection demand if the party believes the initial responses contain (1) an incomplete statement of compliance; (2) an inadequate, incomplete, or evasive representation of inability to comply; or (3) an objection that is too general or lacks merit. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.310, subd. (a).) 13
AHM moves the Court to issue an order compelling Colindres to produce the Subject Vehicle for inspection on the grounds that AHM must be afforded the opportunity to inspect the Subject Vehicle to assess Colindres’ claims and prepare a defense in advance of the trial date. (AHM Moving Papers, pp. 3:17-4:17.) AHM further asserts that Colindres’ failure causes undue prejudice to AHM. (Id.) The Court agrees and finds that Colindres must be afforded the opportunity to inspect the vehicle to construct a proper defense. Given Colindres elected to bring the instant action, Colindres must comply with the discovery process necessary to progress the proceedings on their own causes of action.
Colindres’ counsel argues in opposition argues that this motion is moot as Colindres’ counsel provides two dates for inspection: either on August 14, 2026 or September 25, 2026. (Carroll Decl., ¶ 8, Ex. C.) The court notes these dates were not proposed until July 2, 2026, concurrent with Colindres’ opposition.
The Court disagrees that this matter is moot. Colindres’ counsel has previously agreed to inspections, only to cancel without committing to new dates.Accordingly, the Court grants AHM’s motion and orders Plaintiff to produce the Subject Vehicle for inspection within fourteen (14) days of the hearing on this Motion, if Plaintiffs have not done so already.
Sanctions
Where the court grants a motion to compel, sanctions shall be imposed against the party who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel, unless the party acted with substantial justification or the sanction would otherwise be unjust. (Code Civ. Proc., §2031.310, subd. (h).)
AHM’s counsel request sanctions in the amount of $1,950.00 for Defendant’s time expended preparing the instant motion and reply. Counsel Sadanaga hourly rate is $350 per hour, and she declares she spent 2.5 hours preparing the moving papers and anticipated spending another 2.9 hours to prepare the reply brief and attend the hearing, as well as a $60 filing fee. (Sadanaga Decl., ¶10.) The court finds the hourly rates reasonable but reduces the time anticipated for the opposition reply, and attending the hearing to 1.0 hour.
Accordingly, the Court grants AHM’s motion for sanctions at the reduced amount of $1,285.
Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), and Code of Civil Procedure section 1019.5, subdivision (a), no further written order is necessary. The minute order adopting this tentative ruling will serve as the order of the court and service by the clerk will constitute notice of the order.
Tentative Ruling
Issued By: KCK on 08/04/26. (Judge’s initials) (Date)
14