Sycamore Canyon Plaza, LLC vs. Yu

Desmond (Plaintiff) agreed to arbitrate because HMA included an arbitration provision in the “Owner’s Handbook & Warranty Information” (Warranty) for the vehicle. (Ameripour Decl., ¶ 4 and Ex. 2.) But HMA has not shown that the Warranty reflects an actual agreement with Plaintiff: HMA does not present any evidence to show that Plaintiff signed or accepted the arbitration provision in the Warranty, or was even informed of its existence.

HMA argues that equitable estoppel applies, as Plaintiff’s claims rely on the Warranty. But an essential element of any contract is the consent of the parties, or mutual assent. (Donovan v. RRL Corp. (2001) 26 Cal.4th 261, 270.) A warranty is not a traditional contract: it is effectively a unilateral promise to the consumer. (Gavaldon v. DaimlerChrysler Corp. (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1246, 1258; Daugherty v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 824, 830.) Equitable estoppel thus cannot apply in this context.

Nor are Plaintiff’s claims clearly dependent upon the Warranty in any event. (See Ford Motor Warranty Cases (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1122, 1133 [warranty claims arise from a statutory scheme; unless properly disclaimed, every retail sale of consumer goods includes the implied warranty that the goods are merchantable].) HMA has thus failed to show that equitable estoppel applies here.

As HMA has failed to establish that an enforceable arbitration agreement exists between HMA and Plaintiff, the Motion is DENIED.

HMA’s Request for Judicial Notice is GRANTED under Ev. Code §452(d), as to the existence of the record.

Plaintiff’s Evidentiary Objection, filed as ROA 38, is OVERRULED.

HMA to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint within 20 days.

Plaintiff is to give notice of this ruling. 8 Sycamore Plaintiff Sycamore Canyon Plaza, LLC’s (“Plaintiff”) unopposed Canyon Plaza, Motion for Terminating and Monetary Sanctions (“Motion”) against LLC vs. Yu defendant Sujin Yu (“Defendant” for this ruling) is GRANTED.

The court previously ordered Defendant to serve initial responses to sets one of form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and requests for production on 06/30/25; monetary sanctions were also issued. (Burton Decl. ¶ 4, Ex. 1.) Despite multiple attempts by Plaintiff’s counsel to obtain verified responses from Defendant, nothing has been served in the 10.5 months since the order was issued and in over 1.5 years since the discovery requests were served. Meet and confer efforts were met with empty promises by defense counsel, or emails improperly sent to Plaintiff’s former counsel without any discovery responses attached. (Burton Decl. ¶¶ 5-10, Exs. 2-6.)

The court finds Defendant has abused the discovery process by failing to respond to authorized methods of discovery and by

disobeying direct court orders. (Civ. Proc. Code §§ 2023.010 and 2023.030.)

Although discovery sanctions are typically meted out sparingly or in an incremental approach (Dep't of Forestry & Fire Prot. v. Howell (2017) 18 Cal. App. 5th 154, 191-92), the court has considered the totality of the circumstances in this instance and finds the actions of Defendant and her counsel are willful, to the detriment of Plaintiff, and that multiple informal attempts to resolve the issues were not successful. (Los Defensores, Inc. v. Gomez (2014) 223 Cal. App. 4th 377, 390.) In addition to the above, as prior monetary sanctions and the responses to requests for admission being deemed as admitted did not dissuade Defendant from additional discovery abuses, the court finds the request for terminating sanctions to be appropriate here.

Plaintiff’s request the court strike Defendant’s answer is granted. Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions against both Defendant and her counsel of record is also granted in the reduced amount of $1,400 ($400/hr. x 3.5 hrs.) as no opposition or reply briefs were filed. Monetary sanctions are due within 15 days of written notice of the ruling.

The court orders that Defendant’s answer is hereby struck.

Plaintiff’s counsel is ordered to give notice of the ruling, and to prepare a request for entry of default which the court will sign upon receipt. 9 Baldwin v. O/C American Honda Motor Co., Inc. 10 Sandler v. Before the Court is the demurrer (ROA 53) and motion to strike General (ROA 54) filed by defendant General Motors LLC (Defendant) Motors, LLC directed to the first amended complaint (FAC) of plaintiffs Shelly Sandler and Dani Sandler (collectively, Plaintiffs). For the reasons set forth below, the demurrer is SUSTAINED without leave to amend. The motion to strike is GRANTED without leave to amend.

Defendant shall file an answer to the FAC within 20 days.

Demurrer

Defendant demurs to the fifth cause of action for Fraudulent Inducement-Concealment in the FAC. Although Plaintiffs initially filed a substantive opposition to the demurrer to the FAC, on May 4, 2026, Plaintiffs filed a notice of non-opposition to the demurrer, in which Plaintiffs state they do not oppose the demurrer to the fifth cause of action in the FAC for fraudulent inducement by concealment. (See ROA 106.)