RAYMUNDO U. HERNADEZ ET AL VS. NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC. ET AL

SF Superior Court - Law & Motion / Discovery Dept 302 - CGC24619770 - December 1, 2025 Hearing date: December 1, 2025 Case number: CGC24619770 Case title: RAYMUNDO U. HERNADEZ ET AL VS. NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC. ET AL Case Number: | | CGC24619770 | Case Title: | | RAYMUNDO U. HERNADEZ ET AL VS. NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC. ET AL | Court Date: | | 2025-12-01 09:00 AM | Calendar Matter: | | Motion To Compel Code-Compliant Verifications; Memorandum Of Points And Authorities; Supporting Declaration | Rulings: | | On the Law & Motion/Discovery calendar for Monday, December 1, 2025, Line 7, PLAINTIFFS RAYMUNDO HERNADEZ AN INDIVIDUAL, JASMIN SANCHEZ' Motion To Compel Code-Compliant Verifications.

Plaintiffs Raymundo U. Hernandez and Jasmin E. Sanchez 's motion to compel code-compliant verifications is denied.

First, the motion is moot. Defendant served an amended verification that substantially complies with Code of Civil Procedure section 2015.5. (Fitch Decl., par. 8; Ex. 2.) The court notes that "the object of a verification is to assure good faith in the averments or statements of a party." (Frio v. Superior Ct. (1988) 203 Cal.App.3d 1480, 1498.) Generally, where there is no allegation of bad faith, a claim of inadequate verification is without merit. (See League of Women Voters v. Eu (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 649, 656.) "The defect [improper verification] is one of form which does not affect the substance." (Soltani-Rastegar v. Sup. Ct. (1989) 208 Cal.App.3d 424, 428.)

Second, the motion is too late. "As with any issue of statutory interpretation, [w]e begin ... with the statute's actual words, the most reliable indicator of legislative intent, assigning them their usual and ordinary meanings, and construing them in context. If the words themselves are not ambiguous, we presume the Legislature meant what it said, and the statute's plain meaning governs. On the other hand, if the language allows more than one reasonable construction, we may look to such aids as the legislative history of the measure and maxims of statutory construction.

In cases of uncertain meaning, we may also consider the consequences of a particular interpretation, including its impact on public policy." (Golf And Tennis Pro Shop Inc. v. Superior Court (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 127, 134-135 (cleaned up).) "We are not to 'construe statutes in isolation, but rather read every statute with reference to the entire scheme of law of which it is part so that the whole may be harmonized and retain effectiveness.'" (Id. at 136.)

Under Code of Civil Procedure section 2031.310(c), plaintiff has 45-days from service of the "verified response" to seek relief. Plaintiff missed that deadline by months. (Fitch Decl., par. 5.) The fact that the verification contained defects does not eclipse the fact that defendant provided a "verified response."

In addition, this factual scenario presents a perfect example for a meet and confer prior to judicial intervention. Treating this motion as a motion to compel further responses advances the meet and confer requirement of the Discovery Act. (Part 1 of 2, tentative ruling continues in next entry) | |