Review regarding status of service
$2,500.00 pursuant to CCP § 871.26(j)(1). Plaintiff’s Notice of Motion indicates that “Plaintiffs Nicole Shannon and Giovanna Bonds” move for such an order. However, the Court has no record of Giovanna Bonds as a Plaintiff in this action. Accordingly, this ruling concerns only the current active Plaintiff in this matter, which is Nicole Shannon. The Motion is unopposed.
This lemon law case arises from Plaintiffs' purchase of a 2018 Jeep Grand Cherokee, which Plaintiff alleges FCA failed to repair within a reasonable number of attempts. This case was filed on March 20, 2025 and is subject to the newly enacted procedural framework under Code of Civil Procedure sections 871.20 through 871.30.
CCP § 871.26(b) provides that within 60 days after the filing of the answer or other responsive pleading, all parties shall, without awaiting a discovery request, provide to all other parties an initial disclosure and documents pursuant to subdivisions (f), (g), and (h).
Defendants filed their Answer on January 20, 2026 (the moving papers incorrectly state that the Answer was filed on January 16, 2026). Pursuant to CCP § 871.26(b), this established a deadline of March 22, 2026 for initial disclosures. Plaintiff’s Motion alleges that FCA “has not provided verified responses, has not disclosed its search methodology, and has not supplemented its production in any meaningful way.” (Mot. 6:2-4.) Plaintiff neglects to inform the Court when initial disclosures were received, but it can be inferred that they were timely served as Plaintiff argues only that FCA is in “material noncompliance,” by failing to provide verifications or supplemental responses.
Plaintiff requests an order compelling Plaintiff to serve verifications. CCP § 871.26 does not require verifications. Plaintiff also requests an order compelling supplemental production of various documents including a “DealerCONNECT” record, “AutoPay claims and Trouble Not Found diagnostic claims,” and “warranty claims paid under the 08-19-XX-40 module reset LOP series.” In addition, Plaintiff seeks an order compelling verifications for various categories of documents for which some production has apparently already been made, including TSBs, recalls, and service manuals.
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?”
Plaintiff further seeks an order requiring that Defendant disclose the search methodology and custodians consulted in conducing the search. Simply put, none of the requests listed above are part of the initial disclosures required by CCP § 871.26(h). That section sets forth a detailed list of what a defendant or manufacturer must provide within 60 days of filing its answer. On this record, it appears that Defendant has complied.
The Motion is DENIED. The proposed order will be modified accordingly.
****************************************************************************** 9:00 a.m. Review Hearings ****************************************************************************** ALVAREZ- HERNANDEZ VS. MENLOVE, ET AL. CASE NUMBER: 25CV-0207463 This matter is on calendar for status of service on Defendant Menlove. On April 24, 2026, the Court granted an order to serve Defendant Menlove by publication. No proof of service by publication has been filed. An appearance is necessary on today’s calendar to provide a status of service.
10