DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
25STCV08648·la·Civil·Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act
Hearing 10 days agoGRANTED

Ruvalcaba v. Nissan North America, Inc. et al.

Motion to Compel Initial Disclosures

Hearing date
Aug 14, 2026
Department
414
Judge
Prevailing
Moving Party

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Causes of action

Monetary amounts referenced

$2,500

Parties

PlaintiffRuvalcaba
DefendantNissan North America, Inc.

Attorneys

Sweeney APC(Sweeney APC)for Defendant

Ruling

4 hours x $575/hour | $2,300.00 | Motion 0849 | 4 hours x $575/hour | $2,300.00 | Total sanctions | | =SUM(ABOVE) \# "$#,##0.00;($#,##0.00)" $4,600.00 | Defendant, 3025-3027 VERMONT PLAZA, LLC, and counsel, Bruce Boice, jointly and severally, are ordered to pay Plaintiff's counsel $4,600.00, within 10 days.

Ruvalcaba v. Nissan North America, Inc. et al. Friday, August 14, 2026 [TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL INITIAL DISCLOSURES AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Sec. 871.26 (7685)

I. BACKGROUND

This action arises from alleged violations of the Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act in connection with a warranty contract issued by Defendant manufacturer. Plaintiff argues Defendant failed to disclose initial documents as required by statute. The 60-day deadline expired on October 31, 2025. Plaintiff asks for an order compelling Defendant's production of documents and issuing mandatory sanctions of $2,500 against Defendant, Nissan North America, Inc. Plaintiff served the motion on Defendant, who failed to file an opposition.

II. DISCUSSION

The statute at issue requires both parties to disclose documents within 60 days after the answer or responsive pleading. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 871.26 (b); (h)(1). Defendant did not comply. (Shahian decl., P. 5.)

The court "shall impose" sanctions of $2,500 against the Defendant's attorney to be paid within 15 business days for failure to comply with the document production requirements unless good cause is shown. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 871.26 (j)(1).)

III. CONCLUSION

Defendant did not file an opposition showing good cause. Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED. Defendant is ordered to comply with the requirement to serve initial disclosures within 15 days. Defendant's counsel, Sweeney APC, is ordered to pay sanctions of $2,500 to Plaintiff within 15 days.

Case Number: 25STCV09166 Hearing Date: August 14, 2026 Dept: 414 25STCV09166 Costantino v. Nissan North America, Inc. et al. Friday, August 14, 2026 [TENTATIVE] ORDER TAKING OFF CALENDAR PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL INITIAL DISCLOSURES AND REQUEST FOR MONETARY SANCTIONS PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Sec. 871.26 (3121)

There is no evidence that Plaintiff served the motion on Defendant. Therefore, the motion is taken off calendar.

Case Number: 25STCV31442 Hearing Date: August 14, 2026 Dept: 414 25STCV31442 Nicole Y. Jackson v. Zeledon, et al. Friday, August 14, 2026 [TENTATIVE] ORDER DEFENDANT'S REQUEST TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO OBTAIN PERMISSION AS PLAINTIFF IS A VEXATIOUS LITIGANT (5404)

I. BACKGROUND

The first amended complaint filed January 8, 2026 alleges claims against Defendants, former landlords, alleging habitability and nuisance claims arising from her tenancy. On March 2, 2026, Defendants filed this motion to dismiss the action for Plaintiff's failure to obtain permission as a vexatious litigant prior to filing this litigation. Plaintiff was served with the motion by did not file an opposition.

II. DISCUSSION

"Nicole Y. Jackson" was deemed a vexatious litigant subject to a prefiling order in 19STCL02275 Nicole Jackson v. Los Angeles MTA on December 2, 2021 and in BS170641 Nicole Y. Jackson v. Aspire Public Schools on December 17, 2021. Both cases show Plaintiff's address as P.O. Box 783 Huntington Park, CA 90255. This is the same address shown on the Amended Complaint filed in this action. Plaintiff filed this action on October 28, 2025, after the prefiling orders were entered.

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share