Espinosa v. FCA US, LLC, et al

13. Espinosa v. FCA US, LLC, et al, Case No. CIVSB2436711 Defendant FCA’s Motion to Compel Deposition of Plaintiff 6/3/26, 9:00 a.m., S-17 Tentative Rulings The Court would find the motion MOOT so far as the parties have already scheduled the deposition. To the extent not already scheduled, the Court would GRANT and discuss a mutually agreeable date certain; alternatively, the Court may order the parties to meet and confer for a date to occur within thirty (30) days. The Court would GRANT sanctions in the amount of $960, payable within thirty (30) days.

Case Summary This is a lemon law case. On or about November 2, 2020, Plaintiff purchased the subject vehicle. They assert that the vehicle included warranties. However, they assert that there were defects and nonconformities to the transmission that manifested within the warranty period. They assert that Defendant knew or should have known of the defects and should not have sold the vehicle. They further allege that Defendant concealed its knowledge of the defects. Notwithstanding, they also alleged they are entitled to replacement or restitution, and that, despite adequate opportunity, Defendant has failed to provide replacement or restitution.

As such, they filed suit on December 11, 2024. After demurrer, Plaintiff filed the operative First Amended Complaint, asserting causes of action for: (1) violation of Section 1793.2(d) (Song- Beverly Act (Act)); (2) violation of Section 1793.2(b) (Act); (3) violation of Section 1793.2(a)(3) (Act); (4) breach of implied warranty of merchantability; (5) negligent repair; and (6) fraudulent concealment.

Analysis

Defendant scheduled Plaintiff’s deposition four times and served notices of deposition each time. The last three dates were jointly-agreed to. However, Plaintiff cancelled the deposition several days before each scheduled date. After the last such cancellation, defense counsel sent a list of six proposed dates and demanded a response by the end of the day. Plaintiff’s counsel quickly responded and indicated an intent to coordinate the proposed dates but did not otherwise respond as of March 23. (Borrero Decl., ¶¶2-13; Exhs. A-L.)

Plaintiff’s counsel declares each of the scheduled dates ultimately became unavailable due to circumstances outside Plaintiff’s control, including staffing transitions within counsel’s office and inadvertent calendaring issues. Plaintiff’s counsel asserts she actively sought to obtain Plaintiff’s updated availability and provide it to defense counsel in advance of the hearing. Thus, she asserts, the delay was not in bad faith. Plaintiff acknowledges dates were not provided as promptly as they could have been. As of the filing of the opposition, Plaintiff is actively working to finalize and provide deposition availability with the expectation the deposition will proceed without the need for Court intervention. However, Plaintiff does not oppose an order setting a firm date if the Court deems such appropriate. (Washington Decl., ¶¶3-10.)