This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/10/2022 at 20:20:34 (UTC).

MARIA DE LOURDES AGUAYO VS JAGUAR LAND ROVER NORTH AMERICA, LLC

Case Summary

On 03/08/2021 MARIA DE LOURDES AGUAYO filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against JAGUAR LAND ROVER NORTH AMERICA, LLC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is CURTIS A. KIN. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******9149

  • Filing Date:

    03/08/2021

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

CURTIS A. KIN

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

AGUAYO MARIA DE LOURDES

Defendants

JAGUAR LAND ROVER NORTH AMERICA LLC

HOLMAN AUTOMOTIVE GROUP INC. DBA LAND ROVER SAN DIEGO

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

DIAMSE GABRIELLE M.

Defendant Attorney

WOLF MATTHEW C.

Other Attorneys

DIAMSE GABRIELLE

 

Court Documents

Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

10/4/2021: Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

10/4/2021: Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses

Separate Statement

10/4/2021: Separate Statement

Separate Statement

10/4/2021: Separate Statement

Opposition - OPPOSITION DEFENDANT JLRNA'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS SET ONE

1/19/2022: Opposition - OPPOSITION DEFENDANT JLRNA'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS SET ONE

Opposition - OPPOSITION DEFENDANT JLRNAS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES SET ONE

1/19/2022: Opposition - OPPOSITION DEFENDANT JLRNAS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES SET ONE

Separate Statement

1/19/2022: Separate Statement

Separate Statement

1/19/2022: Separate Statement

Notice of Change of Firm Name

1/20/2022: Notice of Change of Firm Name

Reply - REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE,

1/25/2022: Reply - REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE,

Reply - REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, SET ONE,

1/25/2022: Reply - REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, SET ONE,

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES TO PL...)

2/1/2022: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES TO PL...)

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE)

8/10/2021: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE)

Notice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice

6/7/2021: Notice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice

Notice of Posting of Jury Fees

6/22/2021: Notice of Posting of Jury Fees

Case Management Statement

6/22/2021: Case Management Statement

Case Management Statement

6/22/2021: Case Management Statement

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (NON-APPEARANCE CASE REVIEW) OF 06/22/2021

6/22/2021: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (NON-APPEARANCE CASE REVIEW) OF 06/22/2021

21 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 10/24/2022
  • Hearing10/24/2022 at 09:00 AM in Department 72 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/14/2022
  • Hearing10/14/2022 at 09:30 AM in Department 72 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Final Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/01/2022
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 72, Curtis A. Kin, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses (to Plaintiff's Reuests for Production, Set One, and Request for Monetary Sanctions $2,279.00) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/01/2022
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 72, Curtis A. Kin, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses (to Plaintiff's Special Interrogatories, Set One, and for Monetary Sanctions $2,279.00) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/01/2022
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Pl...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/25/2022
  • DocketReply (IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, SET ONE,); Filed by Maria De Lourdes Aguayo (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/25/2022
  • DocketReply (IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE,); Filed by Maria De Lourdes Aguayo (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/20/2022
  • DocketNotice of Change of Firm Name; Filed by Maria De Lourdes Aguayo (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/19/2022
  • DocketSeparate Statement; Filed by Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/19/2022
  • DocketSeparate Statement; Filed by Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
22 More Docket Entries
  • 03/29/2021
  • DocketProof of Personal Service; Filed by Maria De Lourdes Aguayo (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/25/2021
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/25/2021
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Failure to File Proof of Service; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/19/2021
  • DocketSummons (on Complaint); Filed by Maria De Lourdes Aguayo (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/19/2021
  • DocketAmended Complaint ( (1st)); Filed by Maria De Lourdes Aguayo (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/10/2021
  • DocketProof of Personal Service; Filed by Maria De Lourdes Aguayo (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/08/2021
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by Maria De Lourdes Aguayo (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/08/2021
  • DocketSummons (on Complaint); Filed by Maria De Lourdes Aguayo (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/08/2021
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Maria De Lourdes Aguayo (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/08/2021
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: *******9149 Hearing Date: February 1, 2022 Dept: 72

MOTIONS TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO: (1) REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION, SET ONE; AND

(2) SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE

Date: 2/1/22 (8:30 AM)

Case: Aguayo v. Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC et al. (*******9149)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Maria de Lourdes Aguayo’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, Set One is GRANTED IN PART. Plaintiff Maria de Lourdes Aguayo’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One is GRANTED IN PART.

Plaintiff seeks further responses to Request for Production Nos. 12 and 13 and Special Interrogatory Nos. 9 and 18.

Request for Production No. 12 and Special Interrogatory No. 9 seek documents and information relating to notices given by defendant Jaguar to the Secretary of Transportation about defects in 2019 Land Rover Range Rover vehicles, which were required under 40 U.S.C. 30118 and 30119. Request for Production No. 13 and Special Interrogatory No. 18 seek documents relating to “vehicle malfunctions,” defined as “concerns regarding the check engine light illuminating, cylinders misfiring, a loud fan or rumbling sound coming from the engine while driving, idle, or while starting the vehicle, a loud fan or rumbling sound coming from the exhaust system while driving, idle, or while starting the vehicle, and a loud fan or rumbling sound coming from the rear of the vehicle while driving, idle, or while starting the vehicle,” in 2019 Land Rover Range Rover vehicles. (Diamse Decls. 3, Exs. A at “DEFINITIONS,” I.)

The Court finds that plaintiff demonstrates good cause for the discovery sought. Based on plaintiff’s allegations regarding engine and exhaust issues (FAC 13), plaintiff is entitled to discovery which is probative of defendant Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC’s (“Jaguar”) knowledge of engine and exhaust defects in 2019 Land Rover Range Rover vehicles, including in vehicles other than the subject vehicle. (Donlen v. Ford Motor Company (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 138, 143-44, 154-55 [evidence pertaining to defects in same model transmission in vehicles other than subject vehicle is relevant to Song-Beverly claim]; Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 967, 973-74, 993 [evidence pertaining to similar problem in other vehicles other than subject vehicle are highly relevant].) Any willfulness in violating the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act would entitle plaintiff to a civil penalty not exceeding two times the amount of actual damages. (FAC 19 [allegation that defendant’s failure to comply with Song-Beverly was willful]; Civ. Code 1794(c); CACI 3244.)

Jaguar’s objections based on overbreadth and burden are without merit as to Request for Production No. 13 and Special Interrogatory No. 18. This discovery is limited to vehicles of the same make, model, and year as the subject vehicle – which serves as a reasonable limitation of time – and tailored to the defects for which plaintiff presented the subject vehicle for repair, including complaints about the engine and exhaust systems. Even though the discovery is not geographically limited, documents and information about vehicles that are the same year, make, and model as the subject vehicle are probative, considering that all 2019 Land Rover Range Rovers could be manufactured based on same specifications.

The Court further notes that Jaguar presents no evidence of the burden to produce the requested documents. (See West Pico Furniture Co. of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal.2d 407, 417 [“The objection based upon burden must be sustained by evidence showing the quantum of work required, while to support an objection of oppression there must be some showing either of an intent to create an unreasonable burden or that the ultimate effect of the burden is incommensurate with the result sought”].)

Plaintiff is thus entitled to discovery regarding defects in the engine, as well as defects in the exhaust system. Jaguar contends that plaintiff presented the vehicle for repair once for a check engine light, cylinder misfiring, and a loud fan sound coming from the engine. Silvio v. Ford Motor Co. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 1205, 1208 only held that the manufacturer must have more than one opportunity to repair the vehicle, not the specific type of defect. Here, plaintiff’s repair orders demonstrate opportunities to repair the subject vehicle on December 3, 2020; December 11, 2020; and March 4, 2020. (Cho Decls. 3 & Exs. 1.) Even if plaintiff were required to present the defective engine for repair at least twice, on December 3, 2020, plaintiff stated that the check engine light was present, and the vehicle was misfiring. (Cho Decls. 3 & Exs. 1 at 27.) On March 4, 2020, plaintiff presented the vehicle for a loud fan sound coming from the engine. (Cho Decls. 3 & Exs. 1 at 25.)

Jaguar’s objection based on trade secrets is without merit. The party asserting trade-secret objections has the burden to establish their existence and operation. (Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. v. Superior Court (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1384, 1390.) Jaguar makes no attempt to demonstrate how discovery of policies and procedures would result in competitive harm. (Code Civ. Proc. 3426.1(d) [“trade secret” is “information, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique, or process, that: (1) [d]erives independent economic value… from not being generally known to the public or to other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use; and (2) [i]s the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy.”].)

The motions are GRANTED as to Request for Production No. 13 and Special Interrogatory No. 18.

However, Request for Production No. 12 and Special Interrogatory No. 9, which seek notices relating to 2019 Land Rover Range Rover vehicles pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30119, are not appropriately narrowed, because they are not limited based on the alleged defects in the subject vehicle. (See Donlen at 217 Cal.App.4th at 143-44, 154-55 [evidence pertaining to defects in same model transmission in vehicles other than subject vehicle is relevant to Song-Beverly claim].) Thus, as to Request for Production No. 12 and Special Interrogatory No. 9, further responses and production are limited to “VEHICLE MALFUNCTIONS in 2019 Land Rover Range Rover vehicles,” as defined by plaintiff in the “Definitions” section of plaintiff’s discovery.

To protect the privacy of third parties, the Court orders the redaction of personally identifiable information contained in responsive documents linked to individuals other than plaintiff.

Within fifteen (15) days hereof, as limited herein, defendant Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC is ordered to serve further, verified responses, without objection, to Requests for Production, Set One, Nos. 12 and 13 and Special Interrogatories, Set One, Nos. 9 and 18 and produce all documents responsive to the Requests for Production at issue.

For failing to comply with discovery obligations and thereby forcing plaintiff to file these two motions, the Court imposes a total of $1,820 in monetary sanctions on defendant Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC and counsel of record, jointly and severally, payable to plaintiff’s counsel of record within thirty (30) days hereof. The monetary sanctions are based on 4 hours of work (instead of the total 10 hours claimed) at an hourly rate of $425, plus $120 in filing fees. The Court notes that plaintiff’s assertion of 5 hours of work for each motion is excessive, considering that the arguments presented in both motions are largely duplicative. (Diamse Decls. 13.)

Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, there is no remote appearance fee. (See https: my.lacourt.org/laccwelcome/#teamsupdates [“The $15 audio/video appearance fee will be waived for hearings on or after September 7th, 2021. The Court provides LACourtConnect free of charge using one-time COVID state budget funding”].)


related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where HOLMAN AUTOMOBILE GROUP, INC. is a litigant

Latest cases where Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer DIAMSE GABRIELLE