Carter v VW

(Van Nuys Courthouse East: Dept. T) August 21, 2026 DEPARTMENT T LAW AND MOTION RULINGS If ALL parties submit on the tentative, then no appearance is necessary unless some other matter (i.e., Case Management Conference) is on calendar. It is not necessary to call the court to request oral argument. Oral argument is permitted on all tentative rulings.

The court finds the court ordered responses to be Code compliant. However, defendant has made production of the documents subject to a protective order that was never requested of the court. A motion for protective order should have been filed prior to the first set of responses. The obligation to obtain the protective order was on defendant. Defendant has been in the case for over one year and never asked for the protective order.

Because the court was required to order defendant to serve Code compliant responses, and because of its continuing refusal to produce documents despite not asking the court for a protective order, the court finds discovery abuse without substantial justification. Defendant has caused unnecessary delay in this case. The court orders monetary sanctions against defendant Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Sec.Sec. 2023.050, 2023.010, 2031.300 and 2031.310 in the sum $4,500 payable to the Client Trust Account of plaintiff counsel by 9/11/2026.

The court notes this is one of the largest sanction awards issued by this department this year in any case. The fact that VW knew it would want a protective order and never obtained it by filing a motion is absolutely discovery abuse. All untimely objections to the discovery requests are stricken. IT IS SO ORDERED. CLERK TO GIVE NOTICE. Case Number: 25VECV06005 Hearing Date: August 21, 2026 Dept: T 25VECV06005 BEYDA V YANG [TENTATIVE] ORDER: Cross-Defendants Jack Yang and Lauren Lin's Demurrer to the Cross-Complaint is OVERRULED as to the first cause of action and SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND as to the second and third causes of action.

Introduction

Cross-Defendants Jack Yang (Yang) and Laure Lin (Lin) (collectively, Cross-Defendants demurred to Cross-Complainant LH Enterprises dba LW Executive's (Cross-Complainant) Cross-Complaint (XC). Cross-Defendants' demurrer placed into issue the first cause of action (COA) for breach of contract, the second COA for express indemnity, and the third COA for tort of another.

Discussion

Cross-Defendants asserted that there are insufficient facts pled to support the first COA for breach of contract. Cross-Complainant alleged that Cross-Defendants breached the Independent Contractor Agreements (ICA) by performing property management activities in violation of ICA paragraph 4.G. and also breached the ICA by failing to indemnify and defend Cross-Complainant from the underlying action filed by Plaintiff Michael Beyda (Plaintiff) in violation of ICA paragraph 14. (XC pars. 5-11, 12-17.)

The "Prohibited Activities" provision in ICA paragraph 4.G. stated that Cross-Defendants are prohibited from engaging in property management activities "without the express written consent of Broker [Cross-Complainant]." The Cross-Complaint is