This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 01/24/2022 at 11:46:23 (UTC).

AILLETH TOM VS VOLVO CAR USA LLC ET AL

Case Summary

On 12/20/2017 AILLETH TOM filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against VOLVO CAR USA LLC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are WILLIAM F. FAHEY and BARBARA M. SCHEPER. The case status is Disposed - Dismissed.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****7795

  • Filing Date:

    12/20/2017

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Dismissed

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

WILLIAM F. FAHEY

BARBARA M. SCHEPER

 

Party Details

Petitioner and Plaintiff

TOM AILLETH

Respondents and Defendants

VOLVO CAR USA LLC

RUSNAK AUTO GROUP

DOES 1 TO 10

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Petitioner and Plaintiff Attorneys

HAW CHRISTINE J.

RIVERO DIANA AMERICA

ROSNER HALLEN DAVID

ROSENSTEIN MICHAEL HARRIS

Respondent and Defendant Attorneys

BOWMAN AND BROOKE LLP

HURVITZ MICHAEL J.

 

Court Documents

Notice of Ruling

12/9/2021: Notice of Ruling

Order - ORDER PROPOSED ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS FEES, COSTS, AND EXPENSES

12/2/2021: Order - ORDER PROPOSED ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS FEES, COSTS, AND EXPENSES

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (RULING ON SUBMITTED MATTER)

12/3/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (RULING ON SUBMITTED MATTER)

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (RULING ON SUBMITTED MATTER) OF 12/03/2021

12/3/2021: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (RULING ON SUBMITTED MATTER) OF 12/03/2021

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES; ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: ...)

12/1/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES; ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: ...)

Notice of Continuance

12/1/2021: Notice of Continuance

Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore

12/1/2021: Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore

Reply - REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES, COSTS, AND EXPENSES

11/22/2021: Reply - REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES, COSTS, AND EXPENSES

Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF MICHAEL J. HURVITZ IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT VOLVO CAR USA, LLCS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS FEES, COSTS, AND EXPENSES

11/16/2021: Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF MICHAEL J. HURVITZ IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT VOLVO CAR USA, LLCS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS FEES, COSTS, AND EXPENSES

Objection - OBJECTION DEFENDANT VOLVO CAR USA LLC.'S OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATIONS BY COUNSEL IN SUPPORT OF ITS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MTN FOR ATTY FEES COSTS & EXPENSESUCTIONS

11/16/2021: Objection - OBJECTION DEFENDANT VOLVO CAR USA LLC.'S OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATIONS BY COUNSEL IN SUPPORT OF ITS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MTN FOR ATTY FEES COSTS & EXPENSESUCTIONS

Opposition - OPPOSITION DEFENDANT VOLVO CAR USA, LLC'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ATTY FEES COSTS & EXPENSES

11/16/2021: Opposition - OPPOSITION DEFENDANT VOLVO CAR USA, LLC'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ATTY FEES COSTS & EXPENSES

Opposition - OPPOSITION DEFENDANT VOLVO CAR USA, LLC'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' REQ. FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE ISO MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES COSTS AND EXPENSES

11/16/2021: Opposition - OPPOSITION DEFENDANT VOLVO CAR USA, LLC'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' REQ. FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE ISO MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES COSTS AND EXPENSES

Declaration - DECLARATION OF PAYAM SHAHIAN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS FEES, COSTS AND EXPENSES

11/4/2021: Declaration - DECLARATION OF PAYAM SHAHIAN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS FEES, COSTS AND EXPENSES

Request for Judicial Notice

11/4/2021: Request for Judicial Notice

Notice - NOTICE INDEX OF EXHIBITS (PER CRC 3.1110(F)) SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS FEES, COSTS, AND EXPENSES

11/4/2021: Notice - NOTICE INDEX OF EXHIBITS (PER CRC 3.1110(F)) SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS FEES, COSTS, AND EXPENSES

Memorandum of Costs (Summary)

11/4/2021: Memorandum of Costs (Summary)

Declaration - DECLARATION OF JASON CLARK IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES, COSTS AND EXPENSES

11/4/2021: Declaration - DECLARATION OF JASON CLARK IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES, COSTS AND EXPENSES

Declaration - DECLARATION OF MICHAEL H. ROSENSTEIN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS FEES, COSTS, AND EXPENSES

11/4/2021: Declaration - DECLARATION OF MICHAEL H. ROSENSTEIN IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS FEES, COSTS, AND EXPENSES

107 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 02/02/2022
  • Hearing02/02/2022 at 08:30 AM in Department 30 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/09/2021
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by Ailleth Tom (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/03/2021
  • Docketat 10:14 AM in Department 30, Barbara M. Scheper, Presiding; Ruling on Submitted Matter

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/03/2021
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for ((Ruling on Submitted Matter) of 12/03/2021); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/03/2021
  • DocketMinute Order ((Ruling on Submitted Matter)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/02/2021
  • DocketOrder (PROPOSED ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS FEES, COSTS, AND EXPENSES); Filed by Ailleth Tom (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/01/2021
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 30, Barbara M. Scheper, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/01/2021
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 30, Barbara M. Scheper, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Attorney Fees - Held - Taken under Submission

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/01/2021
  • DocketOrder Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/01/2021
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Motion for Attorney Fees; Order to Show Cause Re: ...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
162 More Docket Entries
  • 12/26/2017
  • DocketNOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/26/2017
  • DocketOSC-Failure to File Proof of Serv; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/26/2017
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/26/2017
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/26/2017
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/26/2017
  • DocketORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/20/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Ailleth Tom (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/20/2017
  • DocketCOMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF STATUTORY OBLIGATIONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/20/2017
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/08/2017
  • DocketBrief (Amended: 2018-05-08); Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC687795    Hearing Date: December 11, 2020    Dept: 30

Dept. 30

Calendar No.

Tom vs. Volvo Car LLC, et. al., Case No. BC687795 

Tentative Ruling re: Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Deposition and Document Production

Plaintiff moves for an order compelling Defendant produce its Product Follow-up Engineer of Powertrain, Steven F. DeGrazio’s (DeGrazio) deposition and to produce documents responsive to Request Nos. 1-10. The motion is granted.

Any party may obtain discovery, subject to restrictions, by taking the oral

deposition of any person, including any party to the action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.010.) A properly served deposition notice is effective to require a party or party-affiliated deponent to attend and to testify, as well as to produce documents for inspection and copying.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.280, subd. (a).)  

“If, after service of a deposition notice, a party to the action . . . or employee of a party . . . , without having served a valid objection under Section 2025.410, fails to appear for examination, or to proceed with it, or to produce for inspection any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice, the party giving the notice may move for an order compelling the deponent’s attendance and testimony, and the production for inspection of any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2025.450, subd. (a).)

“The motion shall set forth specific facts showing good cause justifying the production for inspection of any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing described in the deposition notice.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.450, subd. (b)(1).)

Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.480, subdivision (a) states: “If a deponent fails to answer any question or to produce any document, electronically stored information, or tangible thing under the deponent’s control that is specified in the deposition notice or a deposition subpoena, the party seeking discovery may move the court for an order compelling that answer or production.”

To prevail, a party moving for an order compelling further responses to deposition questions must make “a fact-specific showing of relevance.” (TBG Ins. Servs. Corp. v. Superior Court (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 443, 448 [analogous rule for document production].) If “good cause” is shown by the moving party, the burden shifts to the responding party to justify any objections made. (Kirkland v. Superior Court (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 92, 98 [analogous rule for document production].)

On June 8, 2020, Plaintiff served a Notice of Deposition of Defendant’s Product Follow-up Engineer of Powertrain, Steven F. DeGrazio and a Request for Production of Documents. (Sogoyan Decl., ¶ 10, Ex. 6.) Plaintiff sought production of certain documents (RFPs 1-10) regarding Defendant’s internal investigation of the SI6 engine.

On June 17, 2020, Defendant objected to Plaintiff’s notice of deposition of Mr. DeGrazio. (Sogoyan Decl., ¶ 11, Ex. 7.) Defendant stated it would not produce Mr. DeGrazio for deposition on the date and time noticed. (Sogoyan Decl., ¶ 11, Ex. 7.) Additionally, Defendant asserted objections to Plaintiff’s requests for production of documents and stated it would not produce the documents requested. (Sogoyan Decl., ¶ 11, Ex. 7.)

On August 12, 2020, Defendant responded to Plaintiff’s meet and confer letter, and agreed to extend Plaintiff’s deadline to file a motion to compel to August 27, 2020. (Sogoyan Decl., ¶ 14, Ex. 10.) On August 26, 2020, Plaintiff requested, and Defendant granted, an extension to file this instant motion until September 3, 2020; thus, this motion is timely filed. (Sogoyan Decl., ¶ 17, Ex. 13.)

Plaintiff has shown good cause for the information sought. The discovery Plaintiff seeks here relates directly to her claim that Defendant was aware that the SI6 engine installed in Plaintiff’s vehicle was defective and that Defendant was willfully violating the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. In addition, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant was aware of the defects prior to Plaintiff purchasing the Vehicle and of its inability to repair the defects.

Defendant argues that DeGrazio’s testimony is not relevant to these issues because there is no fraud by omission claim. Regardless of whether Plaintiff’s causes of action include fraud by omission, Mr. DeGrazio’s testimony will tend to prove Defendant’s knowledge of the defects in the SI6 engine, Defendant’s inability to repair the engine, and Defendant’s willful violation of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act by refusing to repurchase Plaintiff’s Vehicle. This is directly relevant to the issue of treble damages and the civil penalty. (Civ. Code, § 1794, subd. (c).

Defendant responded to the Request for Production with the same boilerplate objections:

VOLVO objects to plaintiff's definition of “INCIDENT” as vague, ambiguous, compound and overly broad. VOLVO objects to the extent plaintiff’s definition results in a discovery request which is compound, disjunctive or conjunctive or which contains improper subparts. VOLVO further objects to plaintiff’s definition as irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

(Sogoyan Decl., Ex. 7; Separate Statement.)

The Court finds that these objections were not even responsive to the document Requests. For example, Defendant objects to the word “INCIDENT” as vague and ambiguous. However, none of the Requests at issue ever ask Defendant to produce anything related to any “INCIDENT.” Instead, the Requests seek information regarding the engine defects and the SI6 engine.

Defendant makes a general objection that the requests at issue are vague and overbroad. However, discovery is construed broadly so as to uphold the right to discovery wherever possible. (Greyhound Corp. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 355, 377-378 (Greyhound Corp).) Any doubt is generally resolved in favor of permitting discovery, particularly where the precise issues in the case are not yet clearly established. (Colonial Life & Accident Insurance Co. v. Superior Court (1982) 31 Cal.3d 785, 790.) “For discovery purposes, information is relevant if it ‘might reasonably assist a party in evaluating the case, preparing for trial, or facilitating settlement.’ [Citation]. Admissibility is not the test and information, unless privileged, is discoverable if it might reasonably lead to admissible evidence. [Citation] These rules are applied liberally in favor of discovery.” (Gonzales v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1539, 1546.)

To the extent that objections are based on “burden,” Defendant has failed to submit “evidence showing the quantum of work required” to respond to the discovery. (West Pico Furniture Co. of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 407, 417.) All discovery imposes some burden on the responding party. Defendant has failed to demonstrate an undue burden. The responding party is required to make more than a conclusory statement of burden or expense in their memorandum of points and authorities. (Coriell v. Superior Court (1974) 39 Cal.App.3d 487, 492-493.) Defendant has not submitted any evidence in opposition to the motion.

Defendant also objects on the ground that Plaintiff is seeking information related to vehicles other than Plaintiff’s vehicle. The Court overrules this objection. What Defendant knew about defects in the SI6 engine and its inability to repair the defects is relevant to Plaintiff’s claim that Defendant willfully failed to repurchase the vehicle knowing that it could not repair the engine defects.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where RUSNAK AUTO GROUP INC. is a litigant

Latest cases where Volvo Car USA, LLC is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer HAW CHRISTINE J. ESQ.

Latest cases represented by Lawyer RIVERO DIANA AMERICA