Hector Soto v. American Honda Motor Company, Inc.

The time to respond to all outstanding discovery has passed, and Plaintiffs have not served responses. Defendants gave notice of these motions, and the time to file opposition has also passed. The motions to compel are therefore granted. Plaintiffs are ordered to serve responses to the outstanding discovery, without objections, within ten days. CCP Sec.Sec.2030.290(a), (b), 2031.300(a), (b).

c. Sanctions Defendants seek imposition of sanctions. Sanctions are mandatory unless Plaintiffs show good cause or substantial justification to avoid sanctions. Sec.Sec.2030.290(c), 2031.300(c). Plaintiffs have not filed timely opposition and have therefore necessarily failed to make this showing. Defendants seek sanctions in the amounts of $1750 (interrogatories Snyder) and $1500 (all other motions). Defense Counsel bills at the rate of $250/hour. The Court awards one hour to prepare each form discovery motion.

No opposition was filed and therefore no time to prepare a reply is awarded. The Court awards one hour to attend the hearing, but only awards the time once. The Court therefore awards a total of five hours of attorney time at the rate of $250/hour, or $1250 in attorneys' fees. Sanctions are sought and imposed against Plaintiffs only and not against their attorneys of record. Plaintiffs, jointly and severally, are ordered to pay $1250 in sanctions to Defendants, by and through their attorney of record, within twenty days.

d. Notice Defendants are ordered to give notice.

Background

Facts Plaintiff, Hector Soto filed this action against Defendant, American Honda Motor Company, Inc. for damages arising out of alleged violations of Song-Beverly. The case is set for trial on 8/24/26.

Motion to Quash (#1) Plaintiff served a notice to appear on Honda, demanding Honda produce Michelle Jongkind, Jeff Chang, Steven Bailey, and Michael V. Tyrrell for appearance at trial. As Honda correctly notes in moving papers, a notice to appear can only be used to require an officer, director, or managing agent of Honda to appear. See CCP Sec.1987(b). Honda provides evidence that the individuals whose appearance is sought by way of the subpoena are not Honda's officers, directors, and/or managing agents, and therefore, in light of the lack of opposition, the motion to quash is granted.

Motion to Quash (#2) Plaintiff served a subpoena on Diamond Valley Honda, demanding that its custodian of records and person most qualified appear at trial. Honda moves to quash the subpoena, contending (a) a subpoena for trial appearance cannot be directed at a custodian of records or PMQ; it must be directed at an individual, who must be personally served with the subpoena, (b) Diamond Valley's PMQ lacks relevant evidence, and (c) the affidavit served with the subpoena does not establish good cause for the production sought. CCP Sec.1987(a) requires the party propounding the trial subpoena to personally serve it on the witness being ordered to appear at trial. Plaintiff necessarily failed to do so, as Plaintiff seeks only to have the PMQ appear at trial. In the absence of opposition, the motion to quash is granted.

Sanctions CCP Sec.1987.2 authorizes sanctions if a subpoena is propounded without good cause or substantial justification. The Court has previously granted similar motions to quash with Plaintiff's attorney acting as opposing counsel, and therefore Plaintiff's attorney is aware that serving these types of subpoenas are not authorized. The Court therefore finds imposition of sanctions appropriate. Honda seeks sanctions in the amount of $1500/motion (the notices of motion seek sanctions in the amounts of $1500 and $2500, but the declarations both seek sanctions in the amount of $1500).

Honda's attorney's declarations establish fees well in excess of the amount sought have been incurred. The Court reviewed Honda's notices of motion, however, and they fail to comply with CCP Sec.2023.040, which requires Honda to identify each person, party, and/or attorney against whom sanctions are sought. The Court has repeatedly denied Honda's requests for sanctions due to this failure, and the Court denies the request again at this time.

Conclusion

The motions to quash are granted. Despite the appropriateness of sanctions, sanctions are not imposed due to Honda's failure to properly notice its requests for sanctions. Honda is ordered to give notice.

Case Number: 25LBCV02260 Hearing Date: August 18, 2026 Dept: S27 Moving Party: Defendant, American Honda Motor Co., Inc. Opposing Party: Plaintiff, Shirlee N. Ruffus Notice: OK

On 5/18/26, the Court heard Defendant's ex parte application for an order continuing trial and related dates because Plaintiff had not participated in a deposition or made her vehicle available for inspection. The Court ordered Plaintiff to appear for deposition by 6/15/26. The Court also ordered Plaintiff to make her vehicle available for inspection by 6/15/26. On 6/17/26, Defendant filed this motion for terminating sanctions based on Plaintiff's failure to comply with