NAVARRETE VS FORD MOTOR COMPANY

1. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS NAVARRETE VS FORD CVRI2507356 COUNSEL FOR VERONICA MOTOR COMPANY NAVARRETE Tentative Ruling:

After reviewing the declaration of counsel (CRC 3.1362(d)), the court finds that counsel has shown sufficient reasons why the motion to be relieved as counsel should be granted (Manfredi & Levine vs. Superior Court (Barles) (1998) 66 Cal. App. 4th 1128, 1134).

Notice to client was made (Section 3(a) and (b) MC-052; CRC 3.1362(d)). Accordingly, the Motion to be Relieved as Counsel of Record is Granted. Counsel is relieved as counsel of record for client effective upon the filing of the proof of service of the signed order upon the client and all parties that have appeared in the action. Order submitted to the court has been signed and filed by the court clerk.

2. CASE # CASE NAME HEARING NAME MOTION TO COMPEL INITIAL ARAKELIAN VS FCA US DISCLOUSRES PURSUANT TO CVRI2507415 LLC CALIFORNIA CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 871.26 Tentative Ruling:

Moving party: Plaintiffs Alexander Arakelian and Healthcare Solution Center Inc. Responding party: Defendant FCA US LLC

Plaintiffs Alexander Arakelian and Healthcare Solution Center Inc. brings this Song-Beverly action against Defendant FCA US LLC (“Defendant”) regarding a 2021 Jeep Cherokee with transmission, engine, and electrical defects. The operative first amended complaint (“FAC”), filed 8/26/25, asserts: (1) Civ. Code § 1793.2(d); (2) Civ. Code § 1793.2(b); (3) Civ. Code § 1793.2(a)(3); (4) breach of implied warranty; (5) negligent repair (against DCH Chrysler Dodge Jeep Ram Fiat of Temecula); and (6) fraudulent inducement-concealment.

Plaintiffs now move to compel Defendant’s compliance with the initial-disclosure requirements of CCP §871.26 and seek $2,500 in sanctions. Plaintiffs argue that Defendant’s demurrer was served on 3/20/26 and that Defendant had until 5/19/26 to produce documents. Plaintiffs assert that Defendant did not produce warranty transaction records, service bulletins, field actions, recall records, service manuals, among other VINspecific records. Plaintiffs also assert that Defendant did not provide verified disclosures.

In opposition, Defendant states that it timely produced over 683 pages of nonconfidential materials on 3/31/26, and 1,343 pages of confidential materials on 6/5/26