Mojica vs. General Motors, LLC

appear. Failure to appear will result in court dismissal of entire action. Plaintiff SHALL file and serve a status report no later than 10 court days before the hearing.

Plaintiff to give notice of all of the above.

11 Mojica vs. General Motion to Dismiss for Discovery Violations Motors, LLC The court GRANTS Defendant General Motors LLC’s unopposed motion to dismiss action without prejudice and for imposition of costs.

Defendant General Motors, the only named defendant, moves to dismiss this action without prejudice and for costs, pursuant to Section 871.26(j)(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Plaintiffs JORGE L MOJICA and M&J DESIGN INC. filed this lemon law action on 6/27/25 asserting causes of action for violation of Civ. Code § 1793.2(d), violation of Civ. Code § 1793.2(b), violation of Civ. Code § 1793.2(a)(3), breach of implied warranty of merchantability, and fraudulent inducement, based on the sale of a 2022 Chevrolet Silverado 1500 with alleged defects.

Defendant argues that under Section 871.26(c) there is an expedited discovery process requiring Plaintiff to submit to deposition upon Defendant’s election within 120 days of the filing of Defendant’s responsive pleading.

While Defendant does not provide evidence of its election under Section 871.29 in this motion, Defendant previously filed a motion to compel Plaintiffs’ compliance pursuant to Section 871.26(c)(1), and for the statutory sanctions in the amount of $1,500 against counsel pursuant to Section 871.26(j)(1), on the basis of its election under this chapter. On 4/27/26, Judge De La Cruz in Dept. CM02 granted Defendant’s motion for compliance and imposed the $1,500 of mandatory sanctions under Section 871.26(j)(1). Plaintiffs did not oppose the motion to compel compliance and did not contest that this chapter applies.

Plaintiffs also failed to oppose the instant motion. Accordingly, the court finds that Section 871.26 applies.

Dismissal without prejudice, and costs, are authorized under this section for a “plaintiff's repeated noncompliance.” Defendant has set forth the following:

On 2/6/26, after making several unsuccessful attempts to conduct Plaintiff’s deposition, Defendant filed a Motion for Compliance. (Lasater Decl., ¶ 3.) On 4/7/6, in preparation for the IDC conference, Defense counsel reached out to Plaintiffs’ counsel to meet and confer. On 4/13/26, Plaintiffs’ counsel stated they were available for deposition any date between 5/1/26 and 6/30/26. On 4/14/26, Defendant offered 4 days in that time range. Plaintiffs’ counsel did not respond. (Lasater Decl., ¶ 4, Exh. A.)

On 4/27/26, the court granted Defendant’s Motion for Compliance and Request for Sanctions. The court ordered both Plaintiffs to appear for deposition within twenty-one (21) days of the hearing and to pay sanctions in the amount of $1,500 to Defendant. (Lasater Decl., ¶ 5, Exh. B [4/27/26 Order].)

On 4/28/26, Defendant followed up with Plaintiffs’ counsel based on the ruling on the Motion for Compliance and Request for Sanctions. GM requested to schedule Plaintiffs’ deposition. Counsel responded stating they were available between 5/11/26 and 5/15/26. Due to the confusion of the two email chains and the fact that Plaintiffs’ counsel never responded to Defendant’s 4/14/26 proposed dates, Defendant followed up with Plaintiffs’ counsel on 5/18/26. Defense counsel advised Plaintiffs’ counsel that it previously offered dates on 4/14/26 but no one responded.

Defendant attached the email correspondence and asked for new dates. On 5/19/26, Plaintiffs’ counsel stated they were available any date between 5/20/26 and 6/26/26. Defendant responded and offered 6/15/26, 6/17/26 and 6/22/26. Plaintiffs’ counsel again did not respond. On 5/27/26, Defense counsel followed up again within the same thread and Plaintiffs’ counsel still did not respond. (Lasater Decl., ¶ 6, Exh. C [emails between counsel].)

Because Plaintiffs failed to appear for their deposition notwithstanding the court’s 4/27/26 Order requiring them to do so within 21 days, and because Plaintiffs have failed to oppose the instant motion, the court finds that Plaintiffs have engaged in repeated noncompliance and grants the relief afforded by Section 871.26(j)(3).

Accordingly:

The Complaint of Plaintiffs Jorge L Mojica and M&J Design Inc. is DISMISSED without prejudice, and

Plaintiffs’ attorney of record STRATEGIC LEGAL PRACTICES is ordered to pay costs [to be determined via timely cost memorandum] to Defendant, as set forth in Section 871.26(j)(3).

The court also VACATES the scheduled 9/13/27 trial.

Defendant to give notice and submit a proposed order.

13 Cabrera vs. Motion to Quash Service of Summons and Complaint Woodworth The court GRANTS Defendants LING Z. WOODWORTH and JING ZENG’s motion to quash service on the grounds of improper substitute service.

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 415.20(b), “[i]f a copy of the summons and complaint cannot with reasonable diligence be personally delivered to the person to be served...a summons may be served by leaving a copy of the summons and complaint at the person’s dwelling house, usual place of abode, usual place of business, or usual mailing address other than a United States Postal Service post office box, in the presence of a competent member of the household or a person apparently in charge of their office, place of business, or usual mailing address other than a United States Postal Service post office box, at least 18 years of age, who shall be informed of the contents thereof, and by thereafter mailing a copy of the summons and of the complaint by first-class mail, postage prepaid to the person to be served at the place where a

23