Hans E. Garcia v. Hyundai Motor America, et al.

The Clerk's Certificate of Mailing also does not include the address at which Defendant was given notice, thus it cannot be shown that Defendant was given notice of the September 9, 2025 Order/Ruling. "It is well settled that a court has the inherent power to correct [a] clerical error in its judgment so that the judgment will reflect the true facts. [Citation.] The power of a court to correct clerical mistakes in judgments is also a statutory power pursuant to section 473. . . . A clerical error in the judgment includes inadvertent errors made by the court which cannot reasonably be attributed to the exercise of judicial consideration or discretion." (Estate of Douglas (2022) 83 Cal.App.5th 690, 695 [internal citation and quotations omitted]; Code Civ.

Proc., Sec. 473, subd. (d) ["The court may, upon motion of the injured party, or its own motion, correct clerical mistakes in its judgment or orders as entered, so as to conform to the judgment or order directed, and may, on motion of either party after notice to the other party, set aside any void judgment or order"].)

Because Defendant was inadvertently not given notice of the September 9, 2025 Order/Ruling, the time by which Defendant had to file his answer had not yet run, and default should not have been entered. Accordingly, the Court grants the motion to set aside default.

Conclusion

Defendant Corey Simmon's motion to set aside default is GRANTED. The default entered on December 26, 2025, is set aside and vacated. Defendant Corey Simmons is granted leave to file an Answer by October 2, 2026, end of business day.

MOTOR AMERICA, et al. CASE NO.: 25NWCV00855 HEARING: 09/02/2026 @ 9:30 a.m. #16 TENTATIVE ORDER Plaintiff Hans E. Garcia's motion for sanctions is GRANTED. Defendant Hyundai Motor America's counsel, Theta Law Firm, LLP is ordered to pay $2,500.00 in monetary sanctions to Plaintiff Hans E. Garcia within 15 business days of the Court's Order. Moving party(s) to give notice. Plaintiff Hans E. Garcia moves for an order issuing monetary sanctions in the amount of $2,500.00 against Theta Law Firm, LLP, counsel of record for Defendant Hyundai Motor America.

Background

On March 11, 2025, Plaintiff Hans E. Garcia filed a lemon law action against Defendants Hyundai Motor America and Downey Hyundai alleging causes of action for (1) violation of Song-Beverly Act - breach of express warranty, (2) violation of Song-Beverly Act - breach of implied warranty, (3) violation of the Song-Beverly Act Section 1793.2(b), and (4) violation of Civil Code Section 1796.5.

On March 24, 2026, Defendant Hyundai Motor America ("Defendant") filed its answer. Defendant did not serve its initial disclosures until July 16, 2026. Plaintiff seeks sanctions for Defendant's failure to serve is initial disclosures within 60 days of his answer and thus filed the instant motion on June 18, 2026.

On August 21, 2026, Defendant filed its opposition. On August 26, 2026, Plaintiff filed a reply.

Legal Standard

"Unless the party failing to comply with this section shows good cause, notwithstanding any other law and in addition to any other sanctions imposed pursuant to this chapter, a court shall impose sanctions as follows: (1) A . . . two-thousand-five-hundred-dollar ($2,500) sanction against the defense attorney respectively, paid within 15 business days for failure to comply with the document production requirements as prescribed in subdivision (b)." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 871.26, subd. (j).)

Analysis

Plaintiff seeks monetary sanctions in the amount of $2,500.00 against Defendant's counsel pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 871.26 subdivision (j)(1). Plaintiff argues that as of June 17, 2026, Defendant failed to serve its initial disclosures pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 871.26 subdivision (b). (Declaration of Anthony P. Greco ("Greco Decl."), P. 5.) "Within 60 days after the filing of the answer or other responsive pleading, all parties shall, without awaiting a discovery request, provide to all other parties an initial disclosure and documents pursuant to subdivisions (f), (g), and (h)." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 871.26, subd. (b).)

Because Defendant filed its answer on March 24, 2026, the time to serve initial disclosures and documents was May 23, 2026. Thus, sanctions are warranted unless Defendant shows good cause as to why sanctions should not be imposed. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 871.26, subd. (j)(1).)

Defendant fails to show that there is good cause to not impose sanctions and focuses its argument only on the fact that Plaintiff has not shown that there is an absence of good cause. Defendant has failed to show that it is Plaintiff's burden to establish the absence of good cause. In fact, section 871.26 subdivision (j) clearly states "[u]nless the party failing to comply with this section shows good cause, notwithstanding any other law and in addition to any other sanctions imposed pursuant to this chapter, a court shall impose sanctions as follows . . ." which clearly places the burden on Defendant to show good cause. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 871.26, subd. (j) [emphasis added].)

Because Defendant only complied with section 871.26 after the instant motion was filed and Defendant has failed to show there is good cause to not impose sanctions, the Court grants Plaintiff's request for sanctions.

Conclusion

Plaintiff Hans E. Garcia's motion for sanctions is GRANTED. Defendant Hyundai Motor America's counsel, Theta Law Firm, LLP is ordered to pay $2,500.00 in monetary sanctions to Plaintiff Hans E. Garcia within 15 business days of the Court's Order. | Home -->)" -->