Monzer Samaan vs General Motors LLC

Case Number

25CV03639

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Mon, 01/12/2026 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

Motion for Compliance and Sanctions

Tentative Ruling

Samaan v. General Motors LLC                         

Case No. 25CV03639

           

Hearing Date:      January 12, 2026                                                   

HEARING:              General Motors LLC’s Motion for Compliance and Sanctions

ATTORNEYS:        For Plaintiff Monzer Samaan: Benjamin Dishchyan, Kronos Law, P.C.

                                    For Defendant General Motors LLC: Mary Arens McBride, Ryan Kay, Erskine Law Group, APC, Todd Gale, Cassandra C. Nelson, Dykema Gossett LLP

                                   

TENTATIVE RULING:

General Motors LLC’s motion for compliance and sanctions is denied.

Background:

On June 10, 2025, plaintiff Monzer Samaan (Samaan) initiated this action by filing a complaint against defendant General Motors LLC (GML) alleging three causes of action for (1) violation of Song-Beverly Act – breach of express warranty, (2) violation of Song-Beverly Act – breach of implied warranty, and (3) violation of the Song-Beverly Act section 1793.2.   

As alleged in the complaint:

On October 18, 2020, Samaan purchased a 2021 Chevrolet Tahoe C1500 LT (Vehicle). (Compl., ¶ 8.) GML issued a written warranty for the Vehicle. (Ibid.)

The Vehicle was delivered to Samaan with defects and subsequently developed other defects during the warranty period including electrical, engine, structural, suspension, and transmission system defects. (Compl., ¶ 10.)

Samaan presented the Vehicle for repairs on three occasions, but GML was unable to conform the Vehicle to the appliable warranty. (Compl., ¶¶ 11-13.) Plaintiff seeks recission, restitution, damages, penalties, and other relief. (Compl., p. 9, ll. 13-24.)

On July 24, 2025, GML answered the complaint by generally denying the allegations therein and asserting twenty-five affirmative defenses.

On October 1, 2025, GML filed this motion requesting $1,500 in monetary sanctions against Samaan’s counsel pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 871.26, subdivision (j), and an order compelling Samaan to comply with disclosures mandated by subdivisions (f) and (g). GML argues that Samaan’s disclosures are missing the required financing documents, loan payoff documents, vehicle registration documents, market value documents, and written disclosure information. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 871.26, subds. (f)(2), (3), (6), (7) & (g)(10).)

No opposition or response to this motion was filed by Samaan.

Analysis:

Code of Civil Procedure section 871.26 “only applies to a civil action … pursuant to Section 871.20.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 871.26, subd. (a).) “[T]his chapter applies to an action, brought against a manufacturer who has elected under Section 871.29 to proceed under this chapter ….” (Code Civ. Proc., § 871.20, subd. (a).) “A manufacturer may elect to be governed by this chapter … by providing written notice of that election to the Arbitration Certification Program within the Department of Consumer Affairs by October 31 of the preceding calendar year ….” (Code Civ. Proc., § 871.29, subd. (a)(1).)

The burden of proof in civil actions is generally a preponderance of the evidence standard on the moving party. (Buss v. Superior Court (1997) 16 Cal.4th 35, 53.) “Except as otherwise provided by law, a party has the burden of proof as to each fact the existence or nonexistence of which is essential to the claim for relief or defense that he is asserting.” (Evid. Code, § 500.) “Evidence received at a law and motion hearing must be by declaration or request for judicial notice … unless the court orders otherwise for good cause shown.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1306(a).)

Here, there has been no prior finding or stipulation by the parties that the procedures in Code of Civil Procedure section 871.26 apply in this action. GML has not provided evidence in support of this motion demonstrating that GML made the required election pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 871.20, 871.29, or 871.30. (Motion; Declaration of Cassandra C. Nelson ISO Motion.) GML has not carried its burden to demonstrate that Code of Civil Procedure section 871.26 applies in this action or that GML is entitled to relief pursuant to subdivisions (f), (g), or (j) of this code section. (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 871.26, subd. (a), 871.20, subd. (a) & 871.29, subd. (a)(1).) The court will deny GML’s motion.