Solomon v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.

deeming Costco's Requests for Admissions, Set One, admitted. Goshare's Request for Judicial Notice is GRANTED.

Discussion

As a threshold matter: Goshare may not move for judgment on the pleadings if it has not filed an answer. (See Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 438(f)(2) [motion by defendant only if "defendant has already filed his or her answer ... and the time for the defendant to demur to the complaint has expired"].) The Court construes Goshare's purported motion as a demurrer to Plaintiff's complaint, rather than a motion for judgment on the pleadings. (See Colberg, Inc. v. State ex rel. Dept. of Public Works (1967) 67 Cal.2d 408, 411-412 [motion filed prior to answer "perform[s] the function of a general demurrer"].)

The Court incorporates its reasoning set forth in its minute order of April 17, 2026, granting Costco's motion for judgment on the pleadings based on the same legal reasoning and the same deemed admissions. Davis's deemed admissions include an admission that "[his] own negligence caused the INCIDENT". (Mulgrew Decl., Exh. A, 4:26.) The Court construes this as an admission that Davis's own negligence is the legal cause of the incident, to the exclusion of Goshare or Costco's alleged negligence. Thus, the deemed admission defeats Davis's claim against both defendants. (See Swedberg v.

Christiana Community Builders (1985) 175 Cal.App.3d 138, 143-144 [co-defendant may use deemed admissions against plaintiff].) Goshare's DEMURRER to Davis's complaint is SUSTAINED, WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.

Ruling Solomon v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Case No. 25SMCV04224 Hearing date August 20, 2026 Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents Background This is a lemon law action. On March 2, 2026, Plaintiff filed this Motion to Compel Further Responses to her Requests for Production (Set One). The motion came on for hearing on July 20, 2026; the Court ordered the parties to meet and confer and file a joint status report prior to a continued hearing this date. The parties filed their joint report on August 13, 2026.

Analysis

Per the Joint Statement of Outstanding Issues, the following matters remain in dispute between the parties:

1. Defendant's production of Other Similar Incident documentation regarding the Subject Vehicle. At the time of the Statement Defendant had not produced these documents, although it had agreed to do so in meeting and conferring.

2. Two training materials identified during meeting and conferring, which Defendant has similarly agreed to produce but had not at the time of the Statement.

3. Communications regarding the Subject Vehicle maintained with Defendant's Customer Relations Center. Defendant has produced three audio recordings and contends this is a complete production; Plaintiff demands a Code-compliant response stating whether all documents have been produced or whether documents existed but have been lost, misplaced, destroyed, etc.

4. Defendant asserts attorney-client privilege over various responsive information but has failed to produce a log. Defendant's portion of the Statement indicates it intends to supplement its responses to moot all issues. Given that no supplement had occurred by the time the Joint Statement was filed, a motion compelling production is warranted. Plaintiff's motion is GRANTED for all matters set forth in the Joint Statement of Issues filed August 13, 2026. Defendant is ordered to supplement its responses, including by providing a privilege log, within 30 days of this Order. | Home -->)" -->