Jesus Favela and Sonia Favela v. Dalia Motor Group dba Diamond Ford

(Stanley Mosk Courthouse: Dept. 517) September 9, 2026 DEPARTMENT 517 LAW AND MOTION RULINGS

Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant James Perry's demurrer to the fraud claim in the Third Amended Cross-Complaint of Defendant/Cross-Complainant Francisco Mesa (1) without leave to amend as to the application of the delayed discovery rule to fend off accrual of the three-year statute of limitations on fraud claims, but (2) with leave to amend as to the application of the equitable tolling doctrine that would stop the running of the statute of limitations.

Following that ruling, Mesa filed a Fourth Amended Cross-Complaint for fraud. Perry has demurred on the ground that the allegations in the Fourth Amended Cross-Complaint fail to plead within the ambit of the equitable tolling doctrine. The Court agrees with Perry and is sustaining the demurrer to the Fourth Amended Cross-Complaint without leave to amend. The Court will explain the basis for this ruling, with reference to relevant caselaw, at the hearing on the demurrer this morning. The fraud claim was the lone one in the Fourth Amended Cross-Complaint. Trial in this case thus will proceed only on Perry's Complaint.

Case Number: 22STCV13577 Hearing Date: September 9, 2026 Dept: 517

The Court is granting the motion of Plaintiffs Jesus Favela and Sonia Favela ("the Favelas") to tax $5,558.33 of the costs set forth in Defendant Dalia Motor Group dba Diamond Ford ("DMG"). DMG prevailed on the Favelas claim against it for negligent repair. That claim was dismissed when the Court granted DMG's motion for judgment on the pleadings. Thus, DMG is entitled to recover certain of its costs. The Court agrees with the Favelas, however, that the items on DMG's memorandum of costs that are the subject of the Favelas' motion should be taxed.

Two of those items are for the costs of transcripts of the depositions of co-Defendant Ford Motor Company's ("Ford") Persons Most Knowledgeable totaling $2010.70. In the Court's view, DMG has not shown that these costs were reasonably necessary for the conduct of DMG's defense of the Favelas' negligent repair claim against it. The deponents offered testimony bearing on the Favelas' claims against Ford. Ford is not the prevailing party vis-a-vis the Favelas. The Favelas are.

Another item is $616.50 for the costs of an expedited transcript of the deposition of the Favelas' expert. Here too, DMG has not shown the reasonably necessity of this cost.

The Favelas also seek to tax $900 in fees paid to their expert. DMG has not shown that it was reasonably necessary for DMG to bear this cost, as opposed to Ford, which faced more claims than DMG to which the expert would opine.

Finally, the Favelas target $2,031.13 in court reporter costs for trial and a final status conference on May 12, 2025. The trial was continued on that date and then never happened because the Favelas claim against DMG was dismissed when the Court granted DMG's motion for judgment on the pleadings and because the Davelas settled their claims against Ford. The preparation of the trial-readiness documents that were discussed at the final status conference on May 12, 2025 related primarily to the Favelas' claims against Ford. DMG has not shown that it was reasonably necessary that it pay for the court reporter, as opposed to Ford.

On a side note, the Court apologizes to the parties and counsel for inadvertently vacating the initial hearing on the Favelas' motion to tax costs when the Favelas' motion for attorney's fees was taken off calendar due to the settlement between the Favelas and Ford.

Case Number: 25STCV35945 Hearing Date: September 9, 2026 Dept: 517

The Court is denying the motions of Zeus Realty Group LLC (1) to quash 1032 N. Sycamore Owner (LA), LLC's deposition subpoena and accompanying request for production documents directed to non-party Gregory Tariloff, or, in the alternative, (2) for a protective order related to the Tariloff deposition. To an extent, these two motions rehash positions that Zeus has advanced in prior ex parte applications that the Court denied. The Court is not persuaded by the new arguments advanced in the motions.

The Court is, however, declining to impose monetary sanctions against Zeus and its counsel for filing and proceeding with the motions. There is substantial justification for Zeus's positions thus rendering sanctions unwarranted.

The Court notes that 1032 N. Sycamore has agreed to limit the scope of requests for production numbers 3, 4, 16,17, and 18. This limitation is salutary and addresses some of