DANIEL BROWN, ET AL. VS FCA US, LLC, ET AL.

(Stanley Mosk Courthouse: Dept. 529) September 9, 2026 DEPARTMENT 529 LAW AND MOTION RULINGS

FCA US, LLC, ET AL. DEFENDANT FCA US LLC'S MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION OF PLAINTIFF DANIEL BROWN AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS Date of Hearing: September 9, 2026 Trial Date: October 28, 2026 Department: 529 Case No.: 24STCV29394 Moving Party: Defendants FCA US LLC and Glendale Chrysler Jeep Dodge Ram Responding Party: Plaintiffs Daniel Brown and Kimberly Gaeta Brown

BACKGROUND On November 28, 2024, Plaintiffs Daniel Brown and Kimberly Gaeta Brown filed a complaint against Defendant FCA US LLC and Glendale Chrysler Jeep Dodge Ram for various violations of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.

[Tentative] Ruling Motion to compel deposition of Plaintiff Daniel Brown and Request for Production of Documents is DENIED; Request for sanctions is GRANTED, in the reduced amount.

ANALYSIS Defendant FCA US LLC moves this court for an order compelling Plaintiff Daniel Brown to appear and testify at their noticed deposition served on May 6, 2026 and produce documents. FCA makes this motion on the grounds Plaintiff failed without substantial justification to appear at their properly noticed deposition and has failed to provide alternative deposition dates upon request. FCA also seeks monetary sanctions against Plaintiff and/or their counsel of record, Larry Chae and Breana Rucker of Strategic Legal Practices, APC (collectively "SLP"), in the amount of $1,750.00 pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 2023.010, 2023.030, and 2025.450.

Any party may obtain any discovery of information, documents, land, property, or electronically stored information so long as the discoverable matter is not privileged, is relevant to the subject matter and can lead one to admissible evidence.¿(CCP Sec.2017.010.)¿ "If, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action ... without having served a valid objection ... fails to appear for examination, ... or to produce for inspection any document, ... described in the deposition notice, the party giving the notice may move for an order compelling the deponent's attendance and testimony, and the production for inspection of any document ... described in the deposition notice." (CCP¿Sec. 2025.450(a).)¿A motion brought to compel a deposition "shall be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration under Section 2016.040, or, when the deponent fails to attend the deposition ... by a declaration stating that the petitioner has contacted the deponent to inquire about the nonappearance." (CCP¿Sec. 2025.450(b)(2).)¿¿¿

Defendants argue the court should compel Plaintiff's deposition as Plaintiff has failed to appear for their properly noticed deposition and produce documents. Defendant contends Plaintiff and Plaintiff's counsel elected to ignore FCA's good faith attempt to resolve this issue.

In opposition, Plaintiff argues the motion should be denied because the requested deposition has already been scheduled and confirmed. Plaintiff Daniel Brown's deposition will proceed remotely on September 11, 2026, at 2:00 p.m., pursuant to Defendant's amended notice served August 19, 2026 (Pan Decl., P.P. 8-10, Ex h.1-2.) Plaintiff also notes the original deposition never proceeded because Defendants themselves canceled the deposition before the noticed date (Wang Decl., P. 8, Ex h. B; Pan Decl., P.P. 4-6.) Counsel for Defendant notes P laintiffs' counsel is finalizing Plaintiffs' responses and production and expects to serve them no later than August 31, 2026, before both the hearing and the agreed deposition. As a result, Plaintiff contends the motion and request for sanctions should be denied.

As the deposition date has now been set, the court denies the motion to compel. However, the court finds sanctions warranted. Defendant has presented evidence that they reached out twice before cancelling the deposition because Plaintiff was non-responsive. The court GRANTS the request for sanctions against Plaintiff and/or Plaintiffs' counsel of record in the reduced amount of $1,560.00.

The court also notes the opposition was 3 days late. D espite Defendant's argument that the¿opposition was not timely ¿served, Defendant filed a reply addressing Plaintiff's¿opposition on the merits. Therefore, there has been no prejudice to¿Defendant. Plaintiff is admonished to comply with the applicable Rules of Court and Code of Civil Procedure.

Based on the foregoing, the motion to compel deposition of Plaintiff Daniel Brown and Request for Production of Documents is DENIED; the request for sanctions is GRANTED, in the reduced amount.

Case Number: 25STCV20158 Hearing Date: September 9, 2026 Dept: 529 ARIN TOROSSIAN vs GENERAL MOTORS, LLC. motion to strike portions of first amended complaint for non-compliance with ccp Sec.871.2 4 Date of Hearing: September 9, 2026 Trial Date: June 2, 2027 Department: 529 Case No.: 25STCV20158 Moving Party: Defendant General Motors LLC Responding Party: Plaintiff Arin Torossian Meet and Confer: Yes. (Perez Decl.)

BACKGROUND On July 1, 2025, Plaintiff Arin Torossian filed a complaint with Defendant General Motors LLC for various violations of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. On May 26, 2026, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint.

[Tentative] Ruling Defendant General Motors LLC's Motion to Strike is CONTINUED.

DISCUSSION Defendant General Motors LLC moves this court for an order to strike designated portions of the First Amended Complaint filed by Plaintiff Arin Torossian on the grounds that the Complaint contains improperly pled requests for civil penalties in violation of Code of Civil Procedure section 871.24, recently enacted to streamline the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.

Motions to strike are used to reach defects or objections to pleadings that are not challengeable by demurrer (i.e., words, phrases, prayer for damages, etc.).¿¿(See CCP Sec.Sec.435, 436 & 437.)¿A motion to strike can be made to strike irrelevant, false or improper matter inserted in any pleading or to strike any pleading or part thereof not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state, a court rule or order of the court.¿¿(CCP Sec.436.)¿ "At least 30 days prior to the commencement of an action seeking civil penalties under subdivision (c) of Section 1794 of the Civil Code, the consumer shall do all of the following: (1) Notify the manufacturer of the consumer's name, the accurate Vehicle Identification Number ("VIN") of the motor vehicle, and a brief summary of the repair history and problems with the motor vehicle. (2) Demand that the manufacturer repurchase or replace the motor¿vehicle."¿¿(CCP¿Sec. 871.24(a).)¿¿The failure to¿ comply with ¿the pre-lawsuit notification requirement precludes recovery of civil penalties for a Song-Beverly claim.¿¿(CCP¿871.24(h).)¿¿

Defendant moves to strike Paragraphs 35, 36, 37, 42, 45, and Subdivisions (f) of the Prayer for civil penalties on the grounds Plaintiff unilaterally and without court-approval changed the date in the initial complaint from July 1, 2025 to June 30, 2025, which is critical to determining which law governs Plaintiff's prayer for civil penalties. Specifically, a s part of recent legislative reforms enacted under Assembly Bill 1755, starting July 1, 2025, all consumers bringing suit against an automobile manufacturer under the Song Beverly Act are required to comply with the written pre-suit notice and vehicle retention requirements of Code of Civil Procedure1 section 871.24 if they wish to seek civil penalties for any alleged breach of express warranty claims. In this matter, Plaintiff filed