DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
25STCV27861·la·Civil·Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act
Hearing in 5 daysMOOT; Plaintiffs sanctioned

LUIS GUZMAN, et al. vs. GENERAL MOTORS, LLC

Defendant's motion for an order for compliance requiring Plaintiffs to appear and comply with initial deposition

Hearing date
Sep 8, 2026
Department
309
Prevailing
Defendant

Motion type

Browse all Motion to Compel Discovery rulings statewide →

Causes of action

Monetary amounts referenced

$1,500.00

Parties

PlaintiffLuis Guzman
PlaintiffMelisa Guzman
DefendantGeneral Motors, LLC

Ruling

County of Los Angeles DEPARTMENT 309

LUIS GUZMAN, et al. vs. GENERAL MOTORS, LLC | Case No.: 25STCV27861 Hearing Date: September 8, 2026 | Defendant's motion for an order for compliance requiring Plaintiffs to appear and comply with initial deposition is MOOT. Plaintiffs are each sanctioned, jointly and severally with counsel, $1,500.00. On 9/23/2025, Plaintiffs Luis and Melisa Guzman (collectively, Plaintiffs) filed suit against General Motors, LLC (Defendant or GM), alleging violations of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (SBA). On 7/31/2026, Defendant moved to compel Plaintiff's compliance pursuant to CCP section 871.26.

Discussion

Defendant moves for an order for compliance requiring Plaintiffs to appear and comply with the initial deposition under Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) section 871.26, subdivision (c)(1). The enactment of Assembly Bill 1755 was codified in Chapter 12 of Title 10 to Part 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (herein, Chapter 12), which went into effect 1/1/2025. (See CCP Sec. 871.20, et seq.) In passing Assembly Bill 1755, the legislature enacted provisions that require the parties to participate in initial depositions. (CCP Sec.871.26, subd. (c).)

The newly enacted provisions are designed to reduce court docket congestion and promote settlement by temporarily staying all discovery (other than the initial disclosure and document exchanges and initial depositions) until an early mediation is completed. (CCP Sec. 871.26, subd. (d).) In opposition, Plaintiffs' counsel argues that the motion is moot as the parties have confirmed in writing that Plaintiffs' depositions will take place on 9/11/2026. Plaintiffs also indicate that they repeatedly offered deposition dates and worked with Defendant to identify dates that were mutually convenient. (Smith Smith Decl.

P. 6, Exh. A.) However, the Court finds Plaintiffs' coordination efforts were insufficient, and constitute

noncompliance. Based on the foregoing, Defendant's motion for an order for compliance requiring Plaintiffs to appear and comply with initial deposition is moot. Plaintiffs are each sanctioned, jointly and severally with counsel, $1,500.00. It is so ordered. Dated: September, 2026 Hon. Jon R. Takasugi Judge of the Superior Court Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at [email protected] by 4 p.m. the day prior as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.

If a party submits on the tentative, the party's email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative. If all parties to a motion submit, the court will adopt this tentative as the final order. If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar. For more information, please contact the court clerk at (213) 633-0517. | Home -->)" -->

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share