Kendra Johnson, et al. vs Gonzalez Bros, Inc.

(Norwalk Courthouse: Dept. C) September 9, 2026 DEPARTMENT C LAW AND MOTION RULINGS

GOMEZ GUTIERREZ vs AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., Case No. 22NWCV01306 The Complaint in this lemon law action was filed on November 14, 2022. Trial is currently scheduled for October 15, 2026. Defendant AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC. (AHM) applies ex parte to advance the hearing for its Motion to Compel Vehicle Inspection, currently scheduled for October 2, 2026, or in the alternative, to continue trial to January 2027.

A vehicle inspection was scheduled on June 16, 2025, but could not be completed because the vehicle was not properly registered and would not be allowed on the road for a test drive. (Haumschild Decl., P.2.) On June 24, 2026, the Court approved a stipulation by the parties to continue trial from July 13, 2026 to the currently scheduled trial date so the parties could complete the vehicle inspection. Despite repeated efforts by AHM to reschedule the vehicle inspection, no inspection has been scheduled. (Id., P.4.)

The ex parte application is GRANTED. The hearing on AHM's Motion to Compel Vehicle Inspection is ADVANCED from October 2, 2026 to today and GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to submit the Subject Vehicle for inspection within 15 days. The Subject Vehicle shall be registered and in drivable condition. No sanctions. Moving party to give notice.

Case Number: 24NWCV04029 Hearing Date: September 9, 2026 Dept: C KENDRA JOHNSON, AN INDIVIDUAL, et al. vs GONZALEZ BROS, INC., Case No. 24NWCV04029 The Complaint in this personal injury action was filed on October 25, 2024. Trial is currently scheduled for October 14, 2026.

Plaintiffs Kendra Johnson and Donnell Smith apply ex parte for an order continuing trial and all related pretrial deadlines on the grounds that the parties have executed a written stipulation to continue trial and all related dates; essential percipient, corporate, treating-physician, records, and expert discovery remains to be completed; defense experts require time to review subpoenaed records once received; defense counsel recently sustained torn tendons in his hand and is expected to remain in a brace through October 2026.

The Court notes that Plaintiff has filed four motions to compel further responses from Defendant Gonzalez Bros., Inc. scheduled for December 1, 2026, December 7, 2026 (two motions), and December 8, 2026. Previously, Plaintiffs filed six motions to compel initial responses from Defendant Angel Hernandez Hinojosa. The Court is concerned that the parties have not exchanged discovery in an expeditious manner.

The ex parte application is DENIED without prejudice. The pending discovery motions are ADVANCED to today and CONTINUED for Motion Setting to September 30, 2026 at 9:30 a.m. to coincide with the Final Status Conference. The parties are ordered to further meet and confer in a good faith attempt to resolve their discovery disputes. After doing so, if court intervention is still required, the parties shall file and serve briefs not to exceed three pages by September 23, 2026 outlining the discovery which remains in dispute and the parties' respective positions.

On September 30, 2026, the Court will hold an informal discovery conference and hear any renewed requests for a trial continuance which may be made orally at the hearing. Moving party to give notice.

Case Number: 24NWCV04102 Hearing Date: September 9, 2026 Dept: C MAZARIEGOS vs NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC., et al. CASE NO.: 24NWCV04102 HEARING: 9/9/26 @ 9:30 AM #8 TENTATIVE ORDER Defendant Nissan North America, Inc.'s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is DENIED. Moving party to give NOTICE.

Defendant Nissan North America, Inc. (Defendant) moves for judgment on the pleadings as to the first through third causes of action in Plaintiff DUNIA J. MAZARIEGOS's (Plaintiff) Complaint. At issue is whether Plaintiff's Vehicle classifies as a new motor vehicle under Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.

Background

This is a lemon law case. Plaintiff bought a used 2020 Nissan Kicks, having VIN No.: 3N1CP5CV3LL554561. (Compliant, P. 9.) Plaintiff also alleges that the Subject Vehicle was presented to a Nissan-authorized repair facility, that Nissan was unable to conform the vehicle to the applicable express warranty after a reasonable number of repair attempts, and that Nissan thereafter failed to provide the remedies alleged to be required under the Act. (Compl. P.P. 28-31.) Trial is scheduled for September 30, 2026.

Legal Standard

A party may move for judgment on the pleadings." (Code Civ. Proc. (CCP) Sec. 438(b)(1). Where the pleadings are defective, "the defect may be raised by demurrer or motion to strike, or by motion for judgment on the pleadings." (Coyne v. Krempels (1950) 36 Cal. 2d 257, 262.) The standard for ruling on a motion for judgment on the pleadings is essentially the same as that applicable to a general demurrer, that is, under the state of the pleadings, together with matters that may be judicially noticed, it appears that a party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. (Bezirdjian v.

O'Reilly (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 316, 321-322, citing Schabarum v. California Legislature (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 1205, 1216.) "A demurrer tests the sufficiency of the complaint as a matter of law; as such, it raises only a question of law." (Osornio v. Weingarten (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 304, 316.) No matter how unlikely or improbable, the complainant's allegations must be accepted as true for the