Alvaro Aguilera Vazquez vs General Motors, LLC

part or all of the action. (CCP Sec. 2023.030(d)(3).)

Defendant/Cross-Complainant Martin Chiang contends this court granted Defendant Martin Chiang's Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents (Set One) on October 15, 2025. Plaintiff, however, did not comply with the court order and once it became clear that Plaintiff did not intend to comply with the Court's order by the thirty-day deadline, Defendant engaged in extensive meet and confer efforts. After nine months of discovery disputes, repeated meet-and-confer efforts, and prolonged attempts to obtain the documents, Plaintiff has not still fully produced all the documents.

The court denies the motion for issue and evidence sanctions. As noted by Defendant Chiang, "[t]he trial court has broad discretion in selecting discovery sanctions, subject to reversal only for abuse. The trial court should consider both the conduct being sanctioned and its effect on the party seeking discovery and, in choosing a sanction, should 'attempt [] to tailor the sanction to the harm caused by the withheld discovery.'" (Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc., (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 967, 992.) At this time, Defendant has not shown that issue sanctions or evidentiary sanctions are warranted or that a lesser sanction would fail to curb the abuse.

As for the request for monetary sanctions, Defendant Chiang requests $6,409.00 for bringing this motion. The court grants the request for monetary sanctions in the reduced amount of $4,295.00, payable within 30 days. Based on the foregoing, Defendant/Cross-Complainant Martin Chiang's Motion for Issue, Evidentiary and Monetary Sanctions is GRANTED, in part.

AGUILERA VAZQUEZ VS GENERAL MOTORS, LLC PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS Date of Hearing: August 26, 2026 Trial Date: May 11, 2027 Department: 529 Case No.: 25STCV12409 Moving Party: Plaintiff Alvaro Aguilera Vazquez Responding Party: Defendant General Motors LLC

BACKGROUND This is a lemon law action. On April 29, 2025, Plaintiff Alvaro Aguilera Vazquez filed a complaint against Defendant General Motors, LLC for various violations of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act as well as Fraudulent Inducement - Concealment. On October 10, 2025, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint. Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint on March 23, 2026.

[TENTATIVE] RULING: Plaintiff's Motion to Stay Proceedings is DENIED.

DISCUSSION Plaintiff Alvaro Aguilera Vazquez moves to stay all proceedings in the matter, pending the Court of Appeal's decision in Price v. General Motors (B353231, app. Pending). Plaintiff makes the motion on the grounds that doing so would promote judicial economy and promote the interest of justice by preventing inconsistent verdicts on the same issue of law in superior courts statewide.

A "court ordinarily has inherent power, in its discretion, to stay proceedings when such a stay will accommodate the ends of justice.' (People v. Bell (1984) 159 Cal.App.3d 323, 329.) As the Court in Landis v. North American Co. (1936) 299 U.S. 248, 254, explained, 'the power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants." (OTO, L.L.C. v. Kho (2019) 8 Cal.5th 111, 141; see also Frieberg v. City of Mission Viejo (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1481, 1489 ["Trial courts generally have the inherent power to stay proceedings in the interests of justice and to promote judicial efficiency."].)

Plaintiff argues Price will decide a novel legal issue that is implicated in this case: whether a manufacturer's post-filing election into the Song-Beverly Act's new procedural regime can retroactively time-bar a complaint that was already on file when the new statutes of repose and limitations took effect. Accordingly, such a determination would affect the action at hand where Plaintiff purchased the subject vehicle in subject vehicle in 2017 and filed the complaint around 2025.

In opposition, Defendant argues Plaintiff's Motion fails to comply with California Rule of Court 3.1306 as Plaintiff fails to properly request judicial notice of the records; Plaintiff has failed to meet the burden of establishing the balance of equities; and the motion is simply a delay tactic designed to manage its own overwhelming litigation caseload as a matter of last resort.

The court denies the motion to stay proceedings. First, regardless of taking judicial notice of Exhibits A through C, Plaintiff has not demonstrated that a stay would be in the interest of justice or promote judicial efficiency. Plaintiff is seeking a stay for an unknown period of time. This would be highly prejudicial to GM. If needed, Plaintiff could file a motion for reconsideration after the Court of Appeal makes its ruling. Based on the foregoing, the motion to stay proceedings is DENIED. | Home -->)" -->