CHAHAL, RAJWANT K vs CENTRAL VALLEY SPECIALTY HOSPITAL INC

Plaintiff's motion is accordingly granted. Crediting Defendant with the sum of $1,280.00 paid under said agreement and including costs and fees of $408.73, judgment is hereby entered for Plaintiff against Defendant for $1,986.25. Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 664.6; Harris v. Rudin, Richman & Appel, (1999) 74 Cal. App. 4th 299.

CV-25-002580 - RUIZ, JOSE RUIZ vs GENERAL MOTORS LLC - Plaintiff Jose Ruiz's Motion to Compel Further Responses to Plaintiff's Request for Demand for Inspection and Production of Documents, Set One, Request for Sanctions - GRANTED.

Without any knowledge of information as to the service of supplementary responses by Defendant as agreed upon with Plaintiff per the parties' Joint Status Statement, the Court will address the motion in its entirety.

Any party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action or to the determination of any motion made in that action, if the matter either is itself admissible in evidence or appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Code of Civ. Proc., Sec. 2017.010. Furthermore, in the absence of contrary court order, a civil litigant's right to discovery is broad. (Williams v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 531).

Requests for Production that relate to Plaintiff's specific vehicle are clearly relevant and discoverable. Code of Civ. Proc., Sec. 2017.010.

The court previously noted Defendant's reliance on California Assembly Bill No. 1755, Code of Civ. Proc Sec. 871.26(h)(1) - (17) and notes again that this list refers to "initial disclosures": it is not an exhaustive list and does not preempt statutory discovery. Additionally, Code of Civ. Proc Sec. 871.26(h), (9) and (10), provide for the disclosure of: (9) Published technical service bulletins ("TSBs") 1 for the same make, model, and year reasonably related to the nonconformities pertaining to the motor vehicle, and (10) Published information service bulletins ("ISBs") for the same make, model, and year reasonably related to the nonconformities pertaining to the motor vehicle. (Emphasis added).

Information regarding other vehicles of the same make, model but of different years was held relevant and discoverable in Doppes v Bentley Motors. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 4th 967. (See also Donlen v. Ford Motor Co. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 138, as modified on denial of reh'g (July 8, 2013). This information is relevant to establish Defendant's knowledge of the defects at issue for purposes of demonstrating willfulness for the imposition of civil penalties, if available. Civ.Code Sec.”1794. Defendant's policies and practices for addressing and evaluating repurchase requests by its customers are also relevant and discoverable for the same reasons.

The burden of justifying any objection and failure to respond to discovery remains at all times with the party resisting same. Williams, v Superior Court (2017) 3 cal.5 th 531). A party objecting to discovery on grounds of undue burden is obliged to present evidence of the burden responding would entail, showing the quantum of work required, and to supply the basis for a determination that the burden, expense, or intrusiveness of that discovery clearly outweighs the likelihood that the information sought will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Williams, supra. See also West Pico Furniture Co.of Los Angeles v Superior Court. In and For Los Angeles County (1961) 56 Cal.2d 407. Defendant has not met its burden in this regard.

Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion is granted. Defendant shall provide supplementary Code compliant responses to Plaintiff's Requests for Production, Set One, Nos.1-58 within fourteen (14) days of the date of service of this order. Monetary sanctions of $1,600.00 are imposed against Defendant for Plaintiff's reasonable attorney fees and costs incurred in filing and prosecuting this motion. Code of Civ. Proc. 2031.300.

CV-26-002704 - CHAHAL, RAJWANT K vs CENTRAL VALLEY SPECIALTY HOSPITAL INC - Defendants' Motion to Compel Arbitration - GRANTED.

As a preliminary matter, the Court notes that Defendants filed a Supplementary Reply contrary to the Court's directions. Accordingly, Defendant's Supplementary Reply shall be disregarded.

The Court finds that Moving Defendants have demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that Plaintiff signed the arbitration agreement at issue and that a valid arbitration agreement exists between the parties that covers the instant dispute. (Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.2 et seq).

The court further finds, based on Defendants' supplementary declaration, that Defendants have sufficiently authenticated. Plaintiff's signature on the arbitration agreement at issue. Notably, Defendants have established that Plaintiff received an onboarding email from Central Valley Human Resources Department directing Plaintiff to the hiring system; that she was expected to create credentials using her previously verified email and to create a unique password to access a secure portal; evidence of a detailed chronology of documents viewed and signed during onboarding; as well as evidence associating the activity with Plaintiff's email address and unique user ID. Ruiz v. Moss Bros. Auto Group, Inc. (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 836; Espejo v. Southern California Permanente Medical Group (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 1047; Garcia v. Stoneledge Furniture LLC (2024) 102 Cal.App.5th 41.

Viewed in conjunction with Defendants' showing that Plaintiff electronically executed multiple onboarding documents on the same date within a close temporal frame and sequence, this evidence is sufficient to authenticate Plaintiff's electronic signature and distinguish this case from those in which arbitration was denied for lack of attribution. (See Espejo v. Southern California Permanente Medical Group (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 1047.)

Plaintiff's procedural objections regarding timeliness and claimed extensions do not warrant denial of the motion. The motion was noticed and briefed in compliance with applicable rules, and there is no showing of waiver.

Accordingly, Defendants' motion is granted as to moving Defendants only. The action is STAYED pending completion of arbitration pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.4. All requests for judicial notice are GRANTED. Evidentiary objections are OVERRULED as not material to the Court's rulings.

The following is the tentative ruling for a case calendared before Commissioner Richard D. Moths in Department 19 located at the Turlock Division at 300 Starr Avenue, Turlock, CA: UD-25-000054 - SUNRISE VILLAGE MHC LLC vs GUZMAN, RIGO - Defendant's Motion for Attorney's Fees/Costs - HEARING REQUIRED.