Unknown v. Honda

when responses to outstanding discovery were due. Counsel asks that the hearing on the motion be continued so Counsel can seek to withdraw. No motion to be relieved has been reserved or filed. The Court will not continue the hearing indefinitely, and it does not appear continuing the hearing would change the ultimate ruling on the motion, as Counsel was responsible for the failure to substantively respond (or, at minimum, communicate with Defendant about problems locating Plaintiff) in a timely manner. The request for a continuance is denied. The Court imposes the requested sanctions of $1010 against Plaintiff and Counsel, jointly and severally. Sanctions must be paid within twenty days. Defendant is ordered to give notice.

1. Motion for Summary Adjudication Defendant moves for summary adjudication of the fourth (breach of implied warranty of merchantability) and fifth (fraud - concealment) causes of action in Plaintiffs' complaint. Plaintiffs failed to timely file opposition papers. 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 and myriad other cases, Department S27 has 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 causes of action nor opposed the motion. Again, the motion is granted.

2. Future Discovery Motions Defendant has a motion to deem RFAs admitted scheduled for hearing on 9/08/26 and a motion to compel responses to SROGs, FROGs, and RPDs scheduled for hearing on 10/13/26. The Court wishes to hear the motions together, and continues the hearing on the 9/08/26 motion to 10/13/26. The Court advises Counsel to be guided by its voluminous past rulings when meeting and conferring in connection with these motions, and the Court strongly encourages the parties to resolve the issues without the need for the 10/13/26 hearing.

Defendant must take the matters off calendar if the parties resolve the issues. Defendant is ordered to give notice. Case Number: 25LBCV01897 Hearing Date: September 3, 2026 Dept: S27 1. Parties' Positions Defendant propounded RFAs on Plaintiff on 12/24/25. As of the filing of the moving papers, on 5/08/26, and despite a meet and confer letter on 5/01/26, Plaintiff had not served responses. Defendant therefore filed this motion to deem RFAs admitted. Plaintiff opposes the motion. Plaintiff's attorney declares the meet and confer efforts were insufficient and "further" responses and verifications have been served, such that the motion should be denied as moot and no sanctions imposed.

2. Initial not Further Plaintiff's opposition papers continually refer to the standards relating to motions to compel further responses to RFAs, as opposed to a motion to deem RFAs admitted. Defendant's moving papers establish Plaintiff never served any responses at all to the subject discovery. Despite Plaintiff referring to her responses as "further" responses, she does not attach the responses and her attorney does not declare that initial responses were ever served. The Court will therefore treat this motion as a motion to deem RFAs admitted, not one to compel further responses to RFAs. Notably, there is no meet and confer requirement when filing a motion to deem RFAs admitted. Plaintiff's arguments re: the insufficiency of the meet and confer process are therefore rejected.

3. Substantive Responses Plaintiff's attorney declares she served verifications and responses, such that the motion to deem RFAs admitted must be denied as moot.

4. Sanctions Defendant's notice of motion indicates Defendant seeks imposition of sanctions against Plaintiff in the amount of $1010. Plaintiff argues sanctions should not be imposed because Plaintiff acted with good cause or substantial justification. Plaintiff cites CCP Sec.2033.290 in support of this contention. Sec.2033.290 relates, however, to motions to compel FURTHER responses to RFAs. Sec.2033.280 relates to a motion to deem RFAs admitted, and sanctions are absolutely mandatory in connection with Sec.2033.280, with no exception for good