Naomi Garcia v. General Motors LLC

(Pomona Courthouse South: Dept. G) May 19, 2026 LASC - Tentative Rulings Main Content --> Online Services Tentative Rulings Text-to-Speech Play Reset DEPARTMENT G LAW AND MOTION RULINGS The Court may change tentative rulings at any time. Therefore, counsel are advised to check this website periodically to determine whether any changes or updates have been made to the tentative ruling. Counsel may submit on a tentative ruling by calling the clerk in Department G at (909) 802-1104 prior to 8:30 a.m. the morning of the hearing.

Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings to Plaintiff Naomi Garcia’s Amended Complaint Respondent: Plaintiff Naomi Garcia

Defendant General Motors LLC?s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings to Plaintiff Naomi Garcia’s Amended Complaint is CONTINUED.

BACKGROUND

This is a Song-Beverly action arising out of the purchase of an allegedly defective motor vehicle. On January 3, 2019, plaintiff Naomi Garcia (Garcia) bought an SUV manufactured by defendant General Motors LLC (GM). On April 29, 2025, Garcia filed the Complaint. On October 17, 2025, Garcia filed the operative Amended Complaint, alleging causes of action for (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 the implied warranty of merchantability; and (5) fraudulent inducement by concealment. On March 17, 2026, GM filed this motion for judgment on the pleadings. On May 5, 2026, Garcia filed the opposition, and on May 12, 2026, GM filed the reply. The motion is set for hearing on May 19, 2026.

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

GM requests that the court take judicial notice of a pleading filed in the Superior Court of California, Count of Alameda. The court may take judicial notice of the records of any California court. (Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (d)(1).) Thus, the court takes judicial notice of the requested record.

ANALYSIS

GM moves for judgment on the fourth cause of action based on the statute of limitations and on the fifth cause of action based on the statute of limitations, the economic loss rule, and the failure to state sufficient facts. For the following reasons, the court CONTINUES the motion.

Legal Standard

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 439, prior to filing a motion for judgment on the pleadings, “the moving party shall meet and confer in person, by telephone, or by video conference with the party who filed the pleading that is subject to the motion for judgment on the pleadings for the purpose of determining if an agreement can be reached that resolves the claims to be raised in the motion to for judgment on the pleadings.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 439, subd. (a).)

It further provides that “the moving party shall identify all of the specific allegations that it believes are subject to judgment and identify with legal support the basis of the claims.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 439, subd. (a)(1).)

While Code of Civil Procedure section 439, subdivision (a)(4) makes clear failing to meet and confer is not grounds to deny a motion for judgment on the pleadings, courts “are not required to ignore defects in the meet and confer process’ and if the court determines “no meet and confer has taken place, or concludes further conferences between counsel would likely be productive, it retains discretion to order counsel to meaningfully discuss the pleadings with an eye toward reducing the number of issues or eliminating the need for [an objection to the pleading], and to continue the hearing date to facilitate that effort.” (Dumas v. Los Angeles County Bd. of Supervisors (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 348, 355 & fn. 3.)

Discussion

GM?s counsel provided a declaration that states that another attorney at her firm met and conferred with Garcia’s counsel. (Seebart Decl., ¶ 2.) However, counsel did not specify whether the meet and confer occurred in person, by video conference, or by telephone as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 439.

Therefore, the court CONTINUES the motion and ORDERS GM?s counsel to MEET AND CONFER with Garcia’s counsel by telephone, video conference, or in person if they have not done so already and FILE a SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION describing such meet and confer efforts, including whether the attempts were made by telephone, video conference, or in person, at least nine (9) court days before the next scheduled hearing on the motion.

CONCLUSION

For these reasons, the motion for judgment on the pleadings is CONTINUED to a date to be determined at the hearing in Department G (Pomona). Counsel for defendant General Motors LLC is ORDERED to MEET AND CONFER with plaintiff Naomi Garcia’s counsel regarding the present motion for judgment on the pleadings and to FILE a SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION describing such meet and confer efforts, including whether the attempts were made by telephone, video conference, or in person, at least nine (9) court days before the next scheduled hearing on the motion.

Case Number: 26PSCV00867 Hearing Date: May 19, 2026 Dept: G Defendant Howard Tse-Ho Hsu’s Demurrer with Motion to Strike to Plaintiff City of Diamond Bar’s Complaint Respondent: Plaintiff City of Diamond Bar TENTATIVE RULING Defendant Howard Tse-Ho Hsu’s Demurrer with Motion to Strike to Plaintiff City of Diamond Bar’s Complaint is CONTINUED.

BACKGROUND

This is a nuisance abatement action. Defendants Howard Tse-Ho Hsu and Cecil Tse Hsu (collectively, the Hsus) allegedly own residential real property within the jurisdiction of plaintiff City of Diamond Bar (the City). Defendants Homebridge Financial Services, Inc.; Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.; and Interfaith Federal Credit Union each allegedly have a recorded interest in the real property.

On September 27, 2023, the City allegedly inspected the real property from the public right-of-way and observed a deteriorated wall, outdoor storage of items and debris, a vehicle encroaching into the public right-of-way, a vehicle parked on an unpaved surface, poor landscaping, and a commercial vehicle; all of which allegedly constitute violations of the City’s Municipal Code. That same day, the City issued a Courtesy Notice to Correct Violation.

On October 4, 2023, the City allegedly re-inspected the real property and observed that the Hsus failed the correct the violations. On October 5, 2023, the City allegedly informed the Hsus that they needed a zoning clearance to properly address the violations.

On March 18, 2024, the City allegedly re-inspected the real property and observed that the Hsus failed to complete the abatement work authorized by the City despite the Hsus obtaining a zoning clearance.

On April 9, 2024, the City allegedly issued a Civil Citation citing the storage of debris and trash storage receptacles in public view, maintenance of a deteriorated wall, and failure to maintain landscaping in proper condition; directing the Hsus to correct the violations; and ordering the Hsus to pay a fine.

On May 9, 2024; June 26, 2024; and September 30, 2024, the City allegedly issued additional Civil Citations citing the same violations, directing the Hsus to correct the violations, and ordering the Hsus to pay a fine. Between June 2024 and March 2026, the City