Solia Imex LLC and Can Yilmaz v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc.

admonished Plaintiffs' attorneys, CCP Sec.473(b) creates the right to file a motion seeking relief, but nothing in the statute contemplates the Court ordering such relief in connection with opposition papers, and Plaintiffs have cited no case interpreting the statute in this manner. The Court has disregarded the late-filed papers. The ruling is without prejudice to Plaintiffs' right to file a Sec.473(b) motion if they have grounds to do so.

Recently, in Mandell-Brown v. Novo Nordisk Inc. (2025) 109 Cal.App.5th 478, 508, the Court of Appeals considered a situation where a plaintiff failed to file an opposing separate statement prior to the hearing on the defendant's motion. The Mandell-Brown Court noted, "Thus, if a plaintiff opposing summary judgment fails to file a separate statement, and the trial court reviews the moving papers and concludes the motion is not deficient on its face, it has discretion under subdivision (b)(3) to grant the motion, without first undertaking a detailed analysis of the supporting evidence to determine if a prima facie showing has been made as to one or more of the elements of each claim." The Court has reviewed the moving papers and finds they are not deficient on their face. In light of the lack of opposition and an opposing separate statement, the Court grants the motion.

Recently, in 24LBCV02791, the Court admonished Plaintiffs' attorney as follows: The Court notes that there have been numerous motions for summary judgment and/or adjudication filed by Honda in various cases without opposition. The Court asks Plaintiff's attorney to dismiss any case or cause of action the plaintiff does not intend to pursue. Requiring the Court to rule on unopposed motions is not an efficient use of judicial resources. Despite this admonishment, Plaintiffs have neither dismissed the action nor opposed the motion. Again, the motion is granted. All future hearing dates, including the upcoming motions, FSC, and trial date, are vacated. Defendant is ordered to submit a judgment of dismissal for processing within five days. The Court will hold the proposed judgment for five days for objections. Defendant is ordered to give notice.

1.

Background

Facts Plaintiffs, Solia Imex LLC and Can Yilmaz filed this action against Defendant, American Honda Motor Co., Inc. for violations of Song-Beverly.

2. Motion to Compel Vehicle Inspection

On 5/11/26, Defendant served Plaintiff with a demand for inspection of vehicle, setting the date of inspection for 6/18/26. On 6/10/26, Plaintiff objected on the ground that the date of inspection was not an available date. While certain conditions were detailed, no other objections were served. Despite multiple meet and confer efforts and an attempt to reschedule the inspection, the inspection has not occurred. Defendant moves for an order compelling Plaintiff to produce the vehicle for inspection. The motion is granted.

CCP Sec.2031.320(a) permits the Court to order an inspection where a party agrees to an inspection, but then fails to actually produce the subject document or tangible thing for inspection. That is the case here. Plaintiffs have agreed, in principle, to an inspection, but have refused to choose a date for inspection and refused to produce the vehicle for inspection. Defendant seeks an order compelling the inspection within fifteen days. The motion is granted. Plaintiffs must immediately contact Defendant to schedule an inspection, which must go forward within fifteen days. No sanctions are sought or imposed. Defendant is ordered to give notice.

Case Number: 25LBCV03225 Hearing Date: September 1, 2026 Dept: S27

Plaintiff's attorney, Mani Arabi of Strategic Legal Partners, seeks to be relieved as counsel, declaring all attempts to communicate with Plaintiff have been unsuccessful. Counsel declares he confirmed Plaintiff's address by certified mail, return receipt requested. Counsel must lodge a copy of the return receipt with the Court prior to the hearing or bring a copy to the hearing. Counsel filed proof of service of the moving papers on Defense Counsel, but not on Plaintiff. If Counsel lodges a copy of the signed return receipt prior to trial and files proof of service of the moving papers on Plaintiff, the motion will be granted, with relief effective upon filing proof of service of the final order on Plaintiff. If Counsel does not do so, the motion will be denied without prejudice.

Defendant filed a limited opposition to the motion, pursuant to which it seeks to have the Court set an OSC re: dismissal for failure to prosecute. CCP Sec.583.420(a)(1) permits the Court to dismiss an action if the summons and complaint are not served within two years after the action is filed. Sec.583.410 also permits the Court to dismiss an action if the case is not brought to trial within two years after filing. There are various other statutes that permit dismissal of an action, none of which apply here. Pursuant to Lyons v. Wickhorst (1986) 42 Cal.3d 911, 915-917, the Court's powers to dismiss absent a statutory basis are extremely limited, and can only be applied in sham actions or where a delay of less than the statutory period has been prejudicial to the other party.

The Court sets an OSC re: dismissal for failure to prosecute for two years after the action was filed, on Monday, 11/22/27 at 8:30 a.m. in Department S27. The Court notes that the trial date remains on calendar on 1/04/27, and CCP Sec.581(b)(5) permits the Court to dismiss the action if Plaintiff fails to appear for trial. Counsel is ordered to give notice.