Fernando Castro-Ramirez vs General Motors LLC

Case Number

22CV04207

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Fri, 04/19/2024 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

Order to Show Cause

Tentative Ruling

For all reasons discussed herein, the court’s order to show cause as to plaintiff’s counsel, Corinna Jiang, is discharged. The court imposes sanctions against counsel for General Motors, LLC, Ryan Kay, in the amount of $500, payable to the court. Payment of sanctions is due by May 19, 2024. Plaintiff’s counsel is ordered to give notice of the court’s ruling herein.

Background:

Plaintiff Fernando Castro-Ramirez filed a complaint in this matter on October 26, 2022, alleging five causes of action against defendant General Motors, LLC (GM): (1) violation of Civil Code section 1793.2, subdivision (d); (2) violation of Civil Code section 1793.2, subdivision (b); (3) violation of Civil Code section 1793.2, subdivision (a)(3); (4) breach of express written warranty (Civ. Code, §§ 1791.2, subd. (a), & 1794); and (5) breach of the implied warranty of merchantability (Civ. Code, §§ 1791.1 & 1794).

As alleged in the complaint, on June 20, 2022, plaintiff purchased a 2022 Chevrolet Silverado 1500 (the vehicle) manufactured and distributed by defendant General Motors, LLC (GM). (Compl., ¶ 6.) In connection with the purchase, plaintiff received an express written warranty providing that in the event a defect developed during the warranty period, plaintiff could deliver the vehicle for repair to GM’s representative. (Id. at ¶ 10.) The vehicle developed defects during the warranty period which impair its use, safety, and value. (Id. at ¶¶ 11-13 & 16.) GM and its representatives were unable or failed to service or repair the vehicle within a reasonable number of attempts. (Id. at ¶ 15.)

GM filed its answer to plaintiff’s complaint on December 8, 2022, generally denying its allegations and asserting twenty-six affirmative defenses.  

On November 28, 2023, plaintiff filed a motion for an order compelling GM to provide further responses to plaintiff’s set one requests for production of documents nos.16, 19, 20, 21, 32 and 42 (the RFP), and to further produce documents (the motion to compel). The motion to compel was opposed by GM.

On February 16, 2024, the court issued its Minute Order (the February Minute Order) continuing the hearing on the motion to compel. The court ordered plaintiff and GM to submit, on or before March 1, 2024, a joint status report or, if necessary, individual status reports regarding any issues remaining with respect to the requests described in plaintiff’s RFP Nos. 16, 19, 20, 21, and 32. Court records reflect that on February 27, 2024, plaintiff filed and served on GM a notice of the February Minute Order. (See Feb. 27, 2024, Notice of Ruling.)

On March 8, 2024, plaintiff late-filed an individual status report (the status report) one week after the deadline stated in the February Minute Order. In the status report, plaintiff states that on February 20, 2024, he attempted to meet and confer with GM by email, and requested GM’s availability for a telephonic meet and confer to discuss the outstanding discovery issues. (Pl. Mar. 8, 2024, Status Report at p. 1, ll. 2-4.) GM did not respond to plaintiff’s correspondence. (Id. at l. 8.) In the status report, plaintiff also described what plaintiff asserts are remaining issues with respect to RFP Nos. 16, 19 through 21, 32, and 42. (Id. p. 3, ll. 20-26.) GM did not file a status report as ordered by the court.

On March 22, 2024, the court issued a Minute Order (the March Minute Order) denying without prejudice the motion to compel of plaintiff. The court further ordered counsel for plaintiff and counsel for GM to appear and show cause why monetary sanctions not to exceed $1,500 should not be imposed for counsel’s violations of the February Minute Order. A copy of the March Minute Order was mailed by the clerk to counsel for the parties on March 26, 2024.

Plaintiff’s counsel has filed and served a written response to the court’s order to show cause. The court has no record of counsel for GM having filed a response to the order to show cause.

Analysis:

“In addition to any other sanctions permitted by law, the court may order a person, after written notice and an opportunity to be heard, to pay reasonable monetary sanctions to the court or an aggrieved person, or both, for failure without good cause to comply with the applicable rules.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.30(b).) As stated in the March Minute Order, available information demonstrates that GM failed to timely and fully meet and confer in good faith with regard to RFP Nos. 16 and 19 through 21, as ordered by the court in the February Minute Order. In addition, plaintiff and GM each failed to timely file a joint or individual status report as required by the February Minute Order. Neither plaintiff nor GM offered any information demonstrating good cause or substantial justification for their violation of the February Minute Order.

In the declaration of plaintiff’s counsel, Corinna Jiang, filed on April 5, 2024, counsel states that the failure to comply with the February Minute Order resulted from an error or inadvertent mistake caused by counsel calendaring the deadline to file a joint or individual status report one week later than the deadline stated in the February Minute Order. (Response, ¶ 6.)

Considering that counsel has explained the calendaring error which resulted in the violation of the February Minute Order, and in the interests of justice, the court will discharge the order to show cause as to plaintiff’s counsel, Corrina Jiang. However, counsel is reminded of their obligation to comply with future court orders that may be issued in this matter. Future violations committed without good cause or substantial justification may result in the imposition of monetary sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure section 177.5.

Though court records reflect that the order to show cause issued was served on counsel for GM, the court has no record of counsel having filed a response demonstrating any legal or other justification for violating the February Minute Order.

“The imposition of sanctions, monetary or otherwise, is within the discretion of the trial court. That discretion must be exercised in a reasonable manner with one of the statutorily authorized purposes in mind and must be guided by existing legal standards as adapted to the current circumstances.” (Winikow v. Superior Court (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 719, 726-727, citations and internal quotation marks omitted.) GM’s counsel’s violation of the February Minute Order, without legal justification, placed an inappropriate burden on the court resulting in the order to show cause. The unjustified violation of the February Minute Order by counsel for GM warrants the imposition of sanctions. Therefore, the court will impose sanctions on GM’s counsel, Ryan Kay, in the amount of $500.