Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 22NWCV00617, Date: 2023-04-26 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22NWCV00617 Hearing Date: September 13, 2023 Dept: C
reyes v. nissan north america
CASE NO.: 22NWCV00617
HEARING: 9/13/23 @ 10:30 AM
#8
Plaintiff’s
Motion to Compel Further Responses is DENIED as moot and Plaintiff’s request
for sanctions is DENIED.
Moving Party to give NOTICE.
Plaintiff Fanny Reyes (Plaintiff) moves to
compel Defendant Nissan North America (Defendant) further response to Request
for Production (set one) pursuant to CCP § 2031.310.
On
December 10, 2019, Plaintiff entered into a Retail Installment Sales Contract
(RISC) to finance their purchase of a 2020 Nissan Altima from a Nissan
dealership. Plaintiff contends that the vehicle was defective and attempts to
repair the vehicle failed to cure the defects. On July 21, 2022, Plaintiff
filed a Complaint against Defendant alleging violation of Song-Beverly Act
against Defendant.
Defendant
filed a motion to compel arbitration under the RISC and its accompanying
arbitration agreement and to stay proceedings on February 1, 2023.
Legal
Standard
CCP
§ 2031.310 allows a party to file a motion compelling further answers to
document requests if it finds that the response is inadequate, incomplete, or
evasive, or an objection in the response is without merit or too general. The motion shall be accompanied with a meet
and confer declaration. (CCP §
2031.310(b).)
Discussion
Plaintiff served written discovery on Defendant
on January 3, 2023. Defendant served objection only responses on February 6,
2023 objecting to each request on the grounds there was a stay of proceedings
due to its motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings filed on February
1, 2023. Plaintiff filed a motion to compel further responses on March 27,
2023. Defendant served supplemental responses on August 15, 2023. Plaintiff’s
Motion to Compel Further Responses is moot because supplemental responses were
served prior to this hearing.
Sanctions
The court shall impose a monetary sanction
against the party who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel
further responses to interrogatories or demand for production of documents
unless the party subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification
or the sanction would otherwise be unjust. (Code of Civ. Proc., §§ 2030.300,
subd. (d), 2031.310, subd. (h), 2033.290, subd. (d).)
The
Court finds that Defendant acted with substantial justification because the
Court believes discovery was stayed pending the resolution of its Motion to
Compel Arbitration. Thus, Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is denied.
Accordingly,
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses is DENIED as moot and
Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is DENIED.