Taylor v. Delgado et al.

warnings, and training provided in connection with the rental. Defense counsel nonetheless instructed Mr. Blanco not to answer various questions posed to him at deposition, including questions about the lift's tilt sensors, alarms, and leveling mechanisms, and about the training of the United Rentals employee who inspected the lift and prepared its Condition Report, on the sole ground that the questions "exceeded the scope" of those categories. Counsel asserted no privilege and never suspended the deposition to seek a protective order. The court reporter marked each instruction for a motion to compel.

An attorney may instruct a deponent not to answer only to protect privileged information or to suspend the deposition and move for a protective order. A relevance or scope objection is preserved without any instruction not to answer. (Stewart v. Colonial Western Agency, Inc. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1006 ["irrelevance alone is an insufficient ground to justify preventing a witness from answering a question posed at a deposition"].) The instructions were also substantively baseless, as the questions fall squarely within Categories 3, 10, and 11. Even if the questions were beyond the scope, a PMK must testify to all information reasonably available to the corporation, the remedy is never an instruction not to answer. Accordingly, the Court grants Plaintiff's motion to compel further responses.

Sanctions

The court shall impose a monetary sanction against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel an answer or production, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust. (Code Civ. Proc., ¿ Sec. 2025.480(j).) Here, the Court finds that Defendant did not act with substantial justification. Applying a lodestar approach and in view of the totality of the circumstances, the Court will award sanctions in the reduced amount of $2,250. Sanctions are awarded against United Rentals and its counsel of record, jointly and severally, and are payable within 30 days of the notice of ruling.

v. Delgado et al., Case No. 25PSCV01351 ORDER ON EX PARTE APPLICATION TO PRECLUDE DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTALLY DESIGNATED EXPERT FROM TESTIFYING AT TRIAL

The Court has read and considered Plaintiffs' Plaintiffs' ex parte application to preclude Defendants' supplementally designated expert from testifying at trial. The Court elects to not call the matter for hearing, see Wilburn v. Oakland Hospital (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1107, 1111 [decision to hear oral argument is within the discretion of the court]), and rules on the application as follows: The Court construes the ex parte application as a motion in limine to be heard at the Final Status Conference in accordance with the Court's trial order. Given the Court's impacted calendar on September 10, 2026, the Court does not have sufficient time to prepare for and hold a hearing on that date.

The Court further determines that the issues raised in the application can be adequately addressed and adjudicated at the Final Status Conference. Pursuant to the Court's trial order, any opposition to the application (as construed as a motion in limine) shall be filed and served by no later than September 16, 2026. Any reply shall be filed and served by no later than September 18, 2026. The Court will hear the matter, together with any other timely filed motions in limine, at the Final Status Conference on September 23, 2026.

For the parties' convenience, the Court includes its standard trial order below: The parties are directed to carefully review this order and file pretrial documents in accordance with this order. The failure to exchange and file the pretrial items set forth below may result in the exclusion of witnesses and evidence at trial or other sanction. At the FSC, the Court will require the parties to provide the Court with information as to the efforts made by the parties to resolve the matter through settlement conference(s) and/or informal or formal mediation. The Court expects the parties to have exhausted their ability to resolve the matter prior to the FSC. Pursuant to Local Rule 3.25(f), all trial counsel must attend the FSC in person. The Court does not permit virtual appearances at FSCs.

At least seven (7) calendar days prior to the FSC, the parties and counsel shall serve and file the following trial documents:

1. Trial Briefs - Each party shall file a trial brief succinctly identifying: (1) the claims and defenses subject to litigation; (2) the legal and factual issues to be decided (with supporting points and authorities); (3) the relief claimed and the calculation of damages sought; (4) the ultimate facts or issues to which you will stipulate; (5) the major evidentiary issues anticipated; and (6) any other information that may assist the Court at trial. While this matter is set for court trial, the parties may wish to point the Court to CACI jury instructions applying to the claims and defenses at issue.

2. Joint Witness List - The parties shall work together and file a joint list of all witnesses that each party intends to call, excluding impeachment and rebuttal witnesses. The joint witness list shall identify each witness by name, specify which witnesses are experts, estimate the length of direct examination, cross-examination, and re-direct examination of each, and include a total of the number of hours for all witness testimony. The parties shall identify all potential witness scheduling issues and special requirements. The parties and counsel shall sign the joint witness list.

3. Joint Verdict Forms - While this matter is set for court trial, the Court nonetheless requires a joint verdict form, so it is clear what specific issues and questions the parties would like the court to resolve. To that end, the parties shall prepare and file a joint proposed special verdict form (with interrogatories). If the parties cannot agree on a joint verdict form after a good faith meet-and-confer session conducted in person, over the phone, or via videoconference, each party must separately file a proposed verdict form.

4. Joint Exhibit List - The parties shall prepare and file a joint exhibit list organized with columns identifying: (1) the exhibit, (2) which party is offering the exhibit, (3) whether there is a stipulation to authenticity and/or admissibility of the exhibit, (4) the date on which the exhibit was identified, and (5) the date on which the exhibit was admitted. Prior to filing the joint exhibit list, the parties shall meet and confer in person, over the phone, or via videoconference to determine whether they will stipulate to the authenticity and/or admissibility of each exhibit or whether there are objections to any exhibit. If there are stipulations, the parties shall note that in the respective column. If not, the objecting party shall specify all objections in the respective column. The parties and counsel shall sign the joint exhibit list.

5. Page and Line Designations for Deposition and Former Testimony - If the parties intend to use deposition testimony or former trial testimony in lieu of any witness's live testimony, the parties shall meet and confer and jointly prepare and file a chart with columns for each of the following: (1) the page and line designations of the deposition or former testimony requested for use, (2) objections, (3) counter-designations, (4) any responses thereto, and (5) the Court's rulings. The objecting party shall specify all objections in the respective column. The parties and counsel shall sign the designations.

Motions in Limine: Motions in limine will be heard at the time of the FSC. (See Local Rule 3.25(f)(2).) Motions in limine shall be filed and served fourteen (14) calendar days before the FSC. Any opposition to the motions in limine shall be filed and served seven (7) calendar days before the FSC. The moving party may file a reply brief three (3) calendar days before the FSC. The parties and counsel shall meet and confer in good faith prior to filing the motions in limine to attempt to reach a stipulation on the evidence and other issues. (See Local Rule 3.57(a)(2).)

This meet-and-confer session shall take place in person, over the telephone, or via videoconference. Motions in limine shall not be used to seek (1) dispositive orders that should have been sought through a motion for summary judgment, summary adjudication, or judgment on the pleadings, or (2) rulings that are "declaratory of existing law or would not provide meaningful guidance for the parties or witnesses." (Kelly v. New West (1996) 49 Cal.App.4th 659, 670.) When filing motions in limine, the parties must comply with Local Rule 3.57, including the required declaration, if applicable.

As explained below, the parties and counsel must provide a tabbed binder at the FSC containing all motions in limine, oppositions, and replies in sequential order consistent with the number assigned to each motion in limine. The binder also must contain a table of contents identifying each motion in limine, opposition, and reply, and the corresponding tab for each.

Trial Binder: The parties and counsel shall provide a joint trial binder for the Court at the FSC. The trial binder shall be organized as follows: Tab A: Trial Briefs Tab B: Motions in Limine Tab C: Joint Statement of the Case Tab D: Joint Witness List Tab E: Joint and/or Contested Verdict Forms Tab F: Joint Exhibit List Tab G: Joint Chart of Page and Line Designations for Deposition and Former Testimony Tab H: Copies of all Current Operative Pleadings

Exhibits: Pursuant to Local Rules 3.52 and 3.53, the exhibits must be pre-marked using Arabic numerals and in instances where exhibits consist of multiple pages, each page must be numbered sequentially. The exhibits must be exchanged at least fourteen (14) calendar days before the FSC and lodged with the Court on the first day of trial. At least three sets of exhibit binders - tabbed and paginated - are required on the first day of trial: one set each for the Court, Judicial Assistant, and witness.

An exhibit binder must also be supplied to each opposing party. The parties and counsel should be familiar with Local Rule 3.148, et seq., regarding trial exhibits, including, but not limited to, Rule 3.150 (requiring exhibit to be shown to opposing parties before first reference), Rule 3.152 (requiring exhibits to be moved into evidence as soon as the evidentiary foundation for their admission has been established), Rule 3.155 (governing publication of exhibits to jurors), and Rule 3.158 (use of depositions, interrogatories, and requests for admissions).

The moving parties (Plaintiffs Montes de Oca and Galvan) are directed to give notice.

Case Number: 25PSCV04236 Hearing Date: September 10, 2026 Dept: H Moradian v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, Case No. 25PSCV04236 ORDER ON MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION

Defendant Mercedes-Benz, LLC's Motion to Compel Arbitration is GRANTED. The case is ordered stayed, pending resolution of binding arbitration.

Background

This is a lemon law action. Plaintiff, Renal Moradian, allegedly entered into an agreement with car dealership Mercedes-Benz of West Covina to lease a 2023 Mercedes-Benz S500 (the "Vehicle") and received express and implied warranties related to the Vehicle. On November 25, 2025, Plaintiff filed a complaint, asserting causes of action against Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC and Does 1-100 for: (1) Breach of Implied Warranty, (2) Breach of Express Warranty, and (3) Violation of the Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. A Post-Mediation Status Conference/Case Management is scheduled for October 28, 2026.

Legal Standard

California law incorporates many of the basic policy objectives contained in the Federal Arbitration Act, including a presumption in favor of arbitrability. (Engalla v. Permanente Medical Group, Inc. (1997) 15 Cal.4th 951, 971-72.) Under both the FAA and California law, arbitration agreements are valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, except on such grounds that exist at law or equity for voiding a contract. (Winter v. Window Fashions Professions, Inc. (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 943, 947.) Arbitration agreements can be invalidated by "generally applicable contract defenses, such as fraud, duress, or unconscionability." (AT&T Mobility LLC v.

Concepcion (2011) 563 U.S. 333, 339.) "California law strongly favors arbitration. Through the comprehensive provisions of the California Arbitration Act (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 1280 et seq.), Legislature has expressed a 'strong public policy in favor of arbitration as a speedy and relatively inexpensive means of dispute resolution. As with the FAA (9 U.S.C. Sec. 1 et seq.), California law establishes a presumption in favor of arbitrability. An agreement to submit disputes to arbitration "is valid, enforceable and irrevocable, save upon such grounds as exist for the revocation of any contract." (OTO, L.L.C. v.

Kho (2019) 8 Cal.5th 111, 125 (OTO).) The petitioner bears the burden of proving the existence of a valid arbitration agreement by a preponderance of the evidence, the party opposing the petition then bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence any fact necessary to demonstrate the agreement should not be enforced, and the trial court sits as a trier of fact to reach a final determination on the issue. (Rosenthal v. Great Western Financial Securities Corp. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 394, 413.)

Discussion

Defendant moves the Court for an order compelling arbitration of all claims alleged in the complaint and staying this action in its entirety pending the completion of arbitration. As a preliminary matter, there is no dispute Plaintiff signed the Agreement, which contains an arbitration clause. There is also no dispute the Federal Arbitration Act governs the arbitration clause. The Court must decide two issues: (1) whether Defendant, as a nonsignatory to the Agreement, has standing to enforce the arbitration agreement and (2) if so, whether the Court or the arbitrator decide whether the arbitration agreement is enforceable. Because the Court determines that Defendant has standing and that there is a valid delegation clause, the Court will compel Plaintiff's claims to arbitration.

Standing

There are exceptions to the general rule that a nonsignatory to an agreement cannot be compelled to arbitrate and cannot invoke an agreement to arbitrate, without being a party to the arbitration agreement." (JSM Tuscany, LLC v. Superior Ct. (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 1222, 1236-37.) For instance, a nonsignatory may compel