Preview
1 JAMES J. YUKEVICH (SBN 159896)
jyukevich@yukelaw. com E-FILED
2 NINA J. KIM (SBN 251593) 11/4/2019 1:16 PM
nkim@yukelaw. com Superior Court of California
3 JESSE YANCO (SBN 308866) County of Fresno
jyanco@yukelaw. com
4 By: C. York, Deputy
ARTHUR L. SUN (SBN 325227)
asun@yukelaw. com
5 YUKEVICH I CAVANAUGH
355 S. Grand Avenue, 15th Floor
6 Los Angeles, California 90071-1560
Telephone: (213) 362-7777
7 Facsimile: (213) 362-7788
Email: eservice@yukelaw.com
8
Attorneys for Defendants
9 MAZDA MOTOR CORPORATION and
MAZDA MOTOR OF AMERICA, INC. dba
10 MAZDA NORTH AMERICAN OPERATIONS
and LITHIA MOTORS, INC.
11
12 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
13 COUNTY OF FRESNO
14 JUAN AGUIRRE NUNEZ, Individually and CASE NO. 18CECG03469
as the Successor-in-Interest to the Estate of
15 Sandra Aguirre Nunez, Deceased; CRYSTAL DEFENDANT MAZDA MOTOR OF
TORRES, Individually; ERIC TORRES, AMERICA, INC. dba MAZDA NORTH
16 Individually; and ABIGAIL AGUIRRE, AMERICAN OPERATIONS’ NOTICE OF
Individually, MOTION AND MOTION FOR
17 SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF
Plaintiffs, ISSUES; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS
18 AND AUTHORITIES
vs.
19 [Filed Concurrently with Separate Statement
MAZDA MOTOR CORPORATION; of Undisputed Material Facts; Compendium of
20 MAZDA MOTOR OF AMERICA, INC. dba Evidence; Declaration ofNina J. Kim;
MAZDA NORTH AMERICA Declaration of Crystal Ventura; and
21 OPERATIONS; LITHIA MOTORS, INC. as [Proposed] Order]
Predecessor-in-Interest to VOLVO OF
22 FRESNO; LYLAC MELANIE TORRES; and Judge: Hon. Jeffrey Y. Hamilton
DOES 1 through 50, inclusive. Date: January 16, 2020
23 Time: 1:30 p.m.
Defendants. Dept.: 501
24
Action Filed: September 18, 2018
25 Trial Date: February 18, 2020
26 ///
27 ///
28 ///
2032454.1 /36-035
MAZDA MOTOR OF AMERICA, INC. dba MAZDA NORTH AMERICAN OPERATIONS’ NOTICE OF
MOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES
1 TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
2
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES..............................................................8
3
I. INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................... 8
4
II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY/STATEMENT OF FACTS...................................................9
5
A. Plaintiffs’ Unsupported Conclusions Concerning Punitive Damages..................10
6
B. To Date, Plaintiffs Have Provided Factually Devoid Discovery Responses.......11
7
C. Contrary to Plaintiffs’ Baseless Assertions, MNAO Does Not Design,
8 Manufacture, or Install Standard Original Equipment Components into
Mazda Vehicles.................................................................................................... 14
9
III. SUMMARY ADJUDICATION STANDARD................................................................. 15
10
A. The Court May Grant Summary Adjudication to Dispose of any
11 Meritless Causes of Action, Including a Claim for Punitive Damages................15
12 B. Punitive Damages are Disfavored Under the Law, and the Court may
Dispose of a Claim for Punitive Damages Through Summary Adjudication......16
L < N 13
IV. ARGUMENT.....................................................................................................................18
14
A. MNAO is Entitled to Summary Adjudication on Plaintiffs’ Claim for Punitive
n
aHs
15
16
Damages.................................................................................................................18
1. Plaintiffs’ Reliance on Conclusory Allegations and Failure to
.<
Provide Supporting Evidence in Discovery are Insufficient to
17 Survive Summary Adjudication................................................................ 18
18 2. Plaintiffs Have No Evidence that Any Officer, Director,
or Managing Agent of Defendant Acted with Oppression,
19 Fraud, or Malice, or Authorized or Ratified Such Conduct......................21
20 B. MNAO is Entitled to Summary Adjudication on Plaintiffs’ Claim for Punitive
Negligent Products Liability................................................................................. 22
21
1. Plaintiffs Have No Evidence that MNAO Acted
22 Negligently in Importing and Distributing the Subject Vehicle...............24
23 2. Plaintiffs Have Not Provided Any Evidence that MNAO
Negligently Failed to Warn of Any Alleged Danger
24 Associated with the Subject Vehicle......................................................
25
25 V. CONCLUSION................................................................................... 25
26
27
28
2032454.1/36-035
2
MAZDA MOTOR OF AMERICA, INC. dba MAZDA NORTH AMERICAN OPERATIONS’ NOTICE OF
MOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page(s)
3 Cases
4 ABCO, LLC V. Eversley,
5 213 Cal. App. 4th 1093 (2013).................................................................................................. 15
6 Aguilar v. Atl. Richfield Co.,
25 Cal. 4th 826 (2001)............................................................................................................... 15
7
Am. Airlines v. Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton,
8 96 Cal. App. 4th 1017 (2002).................................................................................................... 18
9 Angie M. v, Superior Court,
10 37 Cal. App. 4th 1217 (1995).................................................................................................... 18
11 Barker v. Lull Engineering Co.,
20 Cal. 3d 413 (1978)................................................................................................................ 23
12
Basich v. Allstate Ins. Co.,
L < 13 87 Cal. App. 4th 1112 (2001).................................................................................................... 16
14 Blegen v. Superior Court,
i: N
E
>
hi
^
<
^
n
H
u
ig
{J
<
15
16
125
Brown v.
Cal. App. 3d 959 (1981)..................................................................................................... 17
Superior Court,
44 Cal. 3d 1049 (1988).............................................................................................................. 23
17
Bunnell v. Superior Court,
18 254 Cal. App. 2d 720 (1967)..................................................................................................... 13
19 Catalano v. Superior Court,
82 Cal. App. 4th 91 (2000)........................................................................................................ 16
20
Chavez v. Clock,
21
207 Cal. App. 4th 1283 (2012).............................................................................................. ....23
22
Clauson v. Superior Court,
23 67 Cal. App. 4th 1253 (1998).................................................................................................... 17
24 College Hosp. Inc. v. Superior Court,
8 Cal. 4th 704 (1994)................................................................................................17,
18, 21, 22
25
Crouse v. Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison,
26
61 Cal. App. 4th 1509 (1998)............ .............................................................................. .........16
27
Cruz V. Homebase,
28 83 Cal. App. 4th 160 (2000)................ ................................................................................17, 21
2032454.1 /36-035 3
MAZDA MOTOR OF AMERICA, INC. dba MAZDA NORTH AMERICAN OPERATIONS’ NOTICE OF
MOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES
Egan V. Mutual of Omaha,
24 Cal. 3d 809 (1979)................................................................................................................ 18
Combos V. Ashe,
3 158 Cal. App. 2d 517 (1958)..................................................................................................... 17
4
Gonzalez V. Autoliv ASP, Inc.,
5 154 Cal.App.4th 780 (2007)...................................................................................................... 24
6 Grieves v. Superior Court,
157 Cal. App. 3d 159 (1984)..................................................................................................... 17
7
Hoch V. Allied-Signal Inc.,
8 24 Cal. App. 4th 48 (1994)........................................................................................................ 16
9
Holdgrafer v. Unocal Corp.,
10 160 Cal. App. 4th 907 (2008).................................................................................................... 21
11 Hunter v. Pac. Mech. Corp.,
37 Cal. App. 4th 1282 (1995).................................................................................................... 19
12
Marron v. Superior Court,
L < N 13 108 Cal. App. 4th 1049 (2003).................................................................................................. 15
LJ
3
Z
y
14 Merrill v. Navegar, Inc.,
— >
I < 26 Cal. 4th 465 (2001)...................................................................................................
15, 16, 23
u 15
>
y n “
16 Parsons v. Crown Disposal Co.,
Q y
□ [2 i!i 15 Cal. 4th 456 (1997)............................................................................................................... 18
>• 17
Rio Linda Unified School District v. Superior Court,
18 52 Cal. App. 4th 732 (1997)...................................................................................................... 16
19 Roby V. McKesson Corp.,
47 Cal. 4th 686 (2009)............................................................................................................... 22
20
21 Roma V. Ford Motor Co.,
99 Cal. App 4th 1115 (2002)..................................................................................................... 22
22
Sangster v. Patekau,
23 68 Cal. App. 4th 151 (1998)...................................................................................................... 18
24 Scheiding v. Dinwiddie,
69 Cal. App. 4th 64(1999)........................................................................................................ 19
25
26 Sutter Bay Assoc, v. County of Sutter,
58 Cal. App. 4th 860 (1997)................ ........................................................................ .............16
27
Union Bank v. Superior Court,
28 31 Cal. App. 4th 573 (1995).................................................................................... 16,
19, 20, 24
2032454.1 /36-035 4
MAZDA MOTOR OF AMERICA, INC, dba MAZDA NORTH AMERICAN OPERATIONS’ NOTICE OF
MOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES
1 Webb V. Special Electric Co., Inc.,
63 Cal. 4th 167 (2016)......................................................................................................... 23,26
2
White V. Ultramar, Inc.,
3 21 Cal. 4th 563 (1999)....................................... ........................................................................21
4
Statutes
5
Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 437c(f)(l)............................................................................................. 15,
16
6
Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 3294(a)............................................................................................... passim
7
Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(o)(2).................................................................................................... 15
8
Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(p)(2).................................................................................................... 16
9
California Civil Code § 3294(b)...................................................................................................... 21
10
11 California Code of Civil Procedure 2030.310(a)............................................................................ 20
12 California Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.240...............................................................................12
13
14
S N
15
E ^
> < fl.115
u o; 16
5 <
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2032454.1/36-035
MAZDA MOTOR OF AMERICA, INC. dba MAZDA NORTH AMERICAN OPERATIONS’ NOTICE OF
MOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES
1 TO THE HONORABLE COURT, ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS
2 HEREIN:
3 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on January 16, 2020, at 1:30 p.m., or as soon thereafter as
4 the matter may be heard in Department 501 of the above-entitled Court, located at 1130 O Street,
5 Fresno, California, 93721, Defendant MAZDA MOTOR OF AMERICA, INC. dba MAZDA
6 NORTH AMERICAN OPERATIONS (“MNAO”) will, and hereby does, move this Court for an
7 order granting summary adjudication against Plaintiffs JUAN AGUIRRE NUNEZ, individually
8 and as the successor-in-interest to the Estate of Sandra Aguirre Nunez, deceased; CRYSTAL
9 TORRES, individually; ERIC TORRES, individually; and ABIGAIL AGUIRRE, individually
E
D 10 (collectively the “Plaintiffs”), as to the following issues:
0 □
H 'D
m 11 ISSUE NO. 1; Plaintiffs’ claim for punitive or exemplary damages fails as a matter of law
I -
I-rL
Z ^
12 because Plaintiffs do not provide “clear and convincing evidence” that MNAO acted with
^ 0
t fl'
L < 13 “oppression, fraud, or malice” as required under Civil Code § 3294 to support a claim for punitive
y
3
Z
y
14 or exemplary damages.
>
<
15 ISSUE NO. 2: Plaintiffs’ second cause of action for Negligent Products Liability fails a
> < y
u K
\2
j
y 3 s 16 matter of law, as Plaintiffs cannot establish that MNAO acted negligently in importing and
17 distributing the Subject Vehicle, or that MNAO negligently failed to warn of any alleged danger
0 tn
«)0
tn
in
18 associated with the Subject Vehicle.
PI
19 ///
20 ///
21 ///
22 ///
23 ///
24 ///
25 ///
26 ///
27 ///
28 ///
2032454.1/36-035 A
MAZDA MOTOR OF AMERICA, INC. dba MAZDA NORTH AMERICAN OPERATIONS’ NOTICE OF
MOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES
1 This motion is based upon this notice, the attached Memorandum of Points and
2 Authorities, the Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts, the Compendium of Evidence,
3 the Declaration of Nina J. Kim, the Declaration of Crystal Ventura, and upon such other oral and
4 documentary evidence that may be presented at the hearing on this motion, all of which are hereby
5 incorporated by reference.
6
7 DATED: October 31, 2019 YUKEVICH I CAVANAUGH
8
9
By:
10 James J. Yukevich
Nina J. Kim
11 Jesse Yanco
Arthur E. Sun
12
Attorneys for Defendants MAZDA MOTOR
L < N 13 CORPORATION and MAZDA MOTOR OF
hi
J
AMERICA, INC. dba MAZDA NORTH
Z
y
14 AMERICAN OPERATIONS and LITHIA
> N N MOTORS, INC.
>
U
<
<
C
u y
y
J
n
Q.
bJ
ii
ui
u
15
16
□ 0
>• 17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2032454,1/36-035
MAZDA MOTOR OF AMERICA, INC. dba MAZDA NORTH AMERICAN OPERATIONS’ NOTICE OF
MOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
1. INTRODUCTION
This product liability action arises from a multiple-vehicle accident, caused by co
defendant Lylac Torres, who was driving her vehiele at a high rate of speed, and slammed into a
5 line a vehicles stopped in the number three lane of SR-41 northbound freeway, propelling Torres’
6 vehicle into the rear of the deeedent, Sandra Nunez’s (“Decedenf’) 2015 Mazda3 (the “Subject
7 Vehicle”). Plaintiffs allege that the Subjeet Vehicle contained a defective seat baek which
8 collapsed after Deeedent was rear-ended while traveling on the State Route 41 in Fresno,
9 California, eausing her to sustain fatal injuries.
10 As part of Plaintiffs’ claims for strict products liability and negligence, they unjustifiably
11 seek the imposition of punitive or exemplary damages against MNAO—which distributes Mazda
12 branded vehicles in the United States only after they are sold to MNAO in Japan from Mazda
L < 13 Motor Corporation (“MC”), the Subject Vehicle’s manufacturer—premised upon wholly-
111
3
Z
y
14 unsupported theories that MNAO designed, manufactured, and installed the allegedly defective
> " N
>
u
<
<
q;
n
w
^u
Pwi
12 adjudication.
0 >
O'
< N
\Q
13 n. PROCEDURAL HISTQRY/STATEMENT OF FACTS
z
lii
□ o:
Z 0 S 14 Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) on July 22, 2019, alleging the
li.r.
y
> j -N2
<
15 following two causes of action against MNAO, MC and Lithia Motors, Inc.: (1) strict products
>
y
<
o;
I
a
lij
□
’
(0
16 liability; and (2) negligent products liability. See MNAO’s Separate Statement of Undisputed
y 13
D
>- 17 Material Facts No. 1 (“UMF”). Plaintiffs also filed a third cause of action against Defendant
18 Lylac Melanie Torres for motor vehicle negligence.' Id.
19 Plaintiffs allege that on August 22, 2018, decedent, Sandra Aguirre Nunez (“Decedenf’),
20 was driving a 2015 Mazda3 (“Subject Vehicle”) when her vehicle was struck from behind by a
21 2007 Toyota Camry driven by defendant Lylac Torres. UMF No 2. Plaintiffs allege that as a
22 result of the rear impact to the Subject Vehicle, the driver’s seat back of the Subject Vehicle
23 collapsed rearward, which allowed Decedent’s body to become unrestrained and her to move
24 reward in relation to her vehicle. UMF No 4. Plaintiffs allege that her body was thrown into the
25
26 Plaintiffs Juan Nunez and Sandra Nunez filed their initial Complaint in this matter on September 18, 2018.
Plaintiffs’ complaint was thereafter amended on July 22, 2019, to reflect her death on May 17, 2019. Her alleged
27 natural born children. Crystal Torres, Eric Torres, and Abigail Aguirre, were also added as additional plaintiffs.
Other
than the above, the allegations in Plaintiffs’ FAC remain unchanged from the initial Complaint.
28
2032454.1/36-035
MAZDA MOTOR OF AMERICA, INC. dba MAZDA NORTH AMERICAN OPERATIONS’ NOTICE OF
MOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES
1 rear compartment of the Subject Vehicle where she struck her head on the rear passenger seat,
2 causing permanent head and spinal cord injuries, and rendering decedent a quadriplegic, and
3 which eventually caused her death on May 17, 2019 (“Subject Accident”)- Id.
4 A. Plaintiffs’ Unsupported Conclusions Concerning Punitive Damages.
5 Plaintiffs included a claim for punitive or exemplary damages against MNAO on their first
6 and second causes of action, composed of Paragraphs 27-29 of the FAC. UMF No. 4. In relevant
7 part, Plaintiffs plead the following conclusory allegations against MNAO:
8 “ MNAO engaged in “intentional conduct... in order to advance [MNAO’s] pecuniary
interests . ...” UMF No. 5.
9
10 ® MNAO has known since the early 1970s that MNAO’s “vehicles’ front seat backs,
when the seats are occupied, are so weak and poorly reinforced, such that they can and
11 do collapse rearward and occupants of those seats will strike the rear seats of the
vehicles in a 30-35 mile per hour rear end collision, and that when this occurs the
12 seatbelt restraint system becomes almost entirely ineffective.” UMF No. 6.
t;*
L < N 13 « In February 1992, CBS aired a nationwide “60-Minutes” segment, which MNAO was
liJ
□ aware, which exposed this problem with MNAO’s “seats and seatbelt restraint systems
Z 14
LJ
i:N
. ...” UMF No. 7.
111
Z 15
D
> < I
a
® In 1976, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (“NHTSA”) enacted
UjC 111
{j 16 FMVSS 301 .... The films of these FMVSS 310 tests reveal that “virtually all” of
MNAO’s “vehicles’ front seat backs in vehicles manufactured since the FMVSS 301
17 tests were first required, failed and collapsed backward . .. which [MNAO was] clearly
18 aware.” UMF Nos. 8-9.
19 ® Following the February 1992 “60-Minutes” presentation and a “flood of letters from
the public,” that Plaintiffs are informed and believe that MNAO “commissioned
20 various Seat Back Strength Task Forces comprised of numerous engineers ... to look
into the seat back failure issues and seatbelt restraint issues ....” UMF No. 10.
21
22 ® Since the “60-Minutes” presentation, MNAO knew and was well aware from prior
accidents, lawsuits, incidents, and warranty claims, from the NHTA’s Vehicle Owner
23 Questionnaires (“VOQ’s”), and from their FMVSS testing, that the Subject Vehicle’s
seatbacks “were too weak and were incapable of withstanding foreseeable, modest,
24 rear-end impacts at closure speeds as low as 30 miles per hour . ...” UMF No. 11.
25
® Despite knowledge of all of the foregoing, MNAO “knowingly and purposefully
26 designed, manufactured, and install, and continued to design, manufacture, and install
into the SUBJECT VEHICLE, such unsafe and defective passenger seats and seatbelt
27 restraint systems ... all for the purposes of advancing [MNAO’s] pecuniary interests . .
. .’’UMFNo. 12.
28
2032454.1 / 36-035
10
MAZDA MOTOR OF AMERICA, INC. dba MAZDA NORTH AMERICAN OPERATIONS’ NOTICE OF
MOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES
1 ® MNAO’s conduct was despicable because MNAO “knew and intended that [its]
purposeful design, manufacture, and installation into the SUBJECT VEHICLE of such
2 unsafe and defective passenger seats and seatbelt restraint systems ... could kill people
. .. UMFNo. 13.
3
4 ® MNAO “further acted despicably, by failing to warn SANDRA and other members of
the public, of the risks of death and serious injuries resulting from the defective and
5 unsafe seats and seatbelt restraint systems [MNAO] knowingly and deliberately
installed into the SUBJECT VEHICLE . .. and which these defendants willfully and
6 deliberately failed to warn for the purposes of advancing [MNAO’s] pecuniary
7 interests . .. UMF No. 14.
8 “ The decisions made by MNAO “knowingly to design and manufacture the SUBJECT
VEHICLE with its defective seats and seat backs, its defective restraint system and
9 components, and their failure to warn of these defects, all in the defective and
dangerous manner as alleged herein, were made by corporate management of [MNAO]
10 . .. with respect to the conscious and willful disregard of public safety and were made
11 for [MNAO’s] pecuniary gain regarding the design, manufacture, production,
marketing and sale of the SUBJECT VEHICLE.” UMF No. 15.
12
Asa direct and legal result of the aforementioned conduct of [MNAO] an award of
It < 13 exemplary and punitive damages against [MNAO] is proper and appropriate to punish
[MNAO] and to deter such conduct in the future.” UMF No. 16.
14
S N
15 Despite the foregoing allegations, Plaintiffs’ discovery responses are devoid of any facts
> < y
(Lin
16 and evidence supporting their claims. Plaintiffs merely rely upon the same conclusions stated
<
h "
17 above and reiterate these allegations in response to MNAO’s discovery requests, which does not
18 create triable issues of fact.
19 B. To Date, Plaintiffs Have Provided Factually Devoid Discovery Responses.
20 On August 26, 2019, MNAO answered Plaintiffs’ FAC, asserting an affirmative defense
21 that Plaintiffs’ FAC failed to state sufficient facts to warrant punitive damages. UMF Nos. 17-18.
22 Additionally, MNAO propounded detailed discovery requests upon Plaintiffs, requiring them to
23 provide any facts and evidence, not legal conclusions, in support of Plaintiffs’ claims. UMF No.
24 19.
25 For example, MNAO requested that Plaintiffs state all facts, identify all witnesses, and
26 identify and produce all documents supporting their claims that MNAO knew and was well aware
27 from prior accidents, prior lawsuits, and prior warranty claims, that the Subject Vehicle was
28 allegedly defective. UMF Nos. 20, 22, 24, 26. In response. Plaintiffs restated the exact same
2032454.1 /36-035 ^
MAZDA MOTOR OF AMERICA, INC. dba MAZDA NORTH AMERICAN OPERATIONS’ NOTICE OF
MOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES
1 allegation in the FAC, failed to identify a single accident, lawsuit, or warranty claim involving the
2 Subject Vehicle, and failed to identify or produce a single document. UMF Nos 21, 23, 25, 27.
3 Not only that. Plaintiffs objected that they were withholding allegedly responsive documents on
4 the basis of “attorney work-product,” without providing a privilege log pursuant to California
5 Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.240, and surmised that “any additional documents” were in
6 MNAO’s possession. UMF Nos. 27. Despite Plaintiffs flouting their obligations under the
7 Discovery Act, and illogical claim that documents concerning “prior accidents, prior lawsuits and
8 prior warranty claims” as they relate to the Subject Vehicle could possibly fall within the purview
9 of Plaintiffs’ counsel’s works product, the fact remains that Plaintiffs have yet to provide a
q:
0 10 scintilla of evidence to support their claims.
D
J
li.
I
11 MNAO also requested that Plaintiffs provide evidence supporting their claims that MNAO
h
1
u □ ^ 12 knew the Subject Vehicle’s seatback was allegedly defective based upon Federal Motor Vehicle
□
lii
h ^
L Ch ^
iZ < N
m 13 Safety Standard 301 tests. UMF Nos. 28, 30, 32, 34. Again, Plaintiffs merely restated the same
z n
q:
0 n
It ^ 14 allegation in the FAC, failed to identify a single witness, and failed to produce a single document.
J N
1:N
15
u
Z
>
iij
Z
<
a:
y
Q.
u
I/]
U 16
See UMF Nos. 29, 31, 33, 35. Plaintiffs provided no information as to when these alleged tests
were performed, who performed the tests, the nature of the defects discovered in the tests, that the
^ u n <
□ I
17 test results did not meet applicable safety standards, what makes, models and model years of
0
\n
m
m
18 vehicles the tests involved, and whether the tests even involved the Subject Vehicle or the same
(1
19 seating platform as the Subject Vehicle. See id. Such conclusions are clearly insufficient to meet
20 the heightened “clear and convincing” standard of evidentiary proof needed to establish punitive
21 damages. See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 3294(a) (punitive damages may only be recovered “where it
22 is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud
23 or malice.”).
24 Similarly, Plaintiffs provided zero evidence supporting their claims that MNAO knew and
25 was aware from “NHTSA Vehicle Owner’s Questionnaires (‘VOQs’)” that the Subject Vehicle
26 was defective. UMF Nos. 36-43. Moreover, such documents are publicly available documents,
27 maintained by NHSTA in its database. Therefore, Plaintiffs could have compiled any evidence
28 supporting their claims if such evidence existed; Plaintiffs cannot excuse their failure to gather
2032454.1 /36-035 ^2
MAZDA MOTOR OF AMERICA, INC. dba MAZDA NORTH AMERICAN OPERATIONS’ NOTICE OF
MOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES
evidence by merely alleging on information and belief that MNAO possesses the same. See e.g.,
Bunnell v. Superior Court, 254 Cal. App. 2d 720, 723-24 (1967) (“The purpose of the Discovery
Act is to permit a party to prepare himself for trial, not to require one party, at his expense, to
prepare the case for his opponent.”)
Plaintiffs provided zero evidence supporting their claims that MNAO knew and was aware
from a single, 1992 “60-Minutes” video—which does not depict the Subject Vehicle—that the
Subject Vehicle was defective. UMF Nos. 44-51. Plaintiffs provided zero evidence supporting
their claims that MNAO knowingly installed a defective seatback into the Subject Vehicle to
advance MNAO’s pecuniary interests. UMF Nos. 52-59. Indeed, Plaintiffs admitted these
10 allegations were made without any confidence in their accuracy, stating '"[rjesponding party is
11 currently unaware of any specific facts to support the contention^ UMF Nos. 45, 53 (emphasis
□ 12 added).
Q
(n
< 13 In contradiction to the above allegations. Plaintiffs, in their responses to MNAO’s
y z
D a
0 fi 14
Z
y y ^ Requests for Admission, Set One, admitted that: (1) MNAO did not defectively design or
J N
S N
<
u LI
Z
u 15 manufacture the Subject Vehicle; and (2) MNAO did not knowingly install a defective seatback
E“ in 0
>Lj■ ^ < 17 admitted that they have no evidence to support their clam that MNAO’s “own automotive
0
□J
(fl
in
m
18 engineers recommended simple methods to correcf’ the Subject Vehicle’s alleged defects. UMF
d
19 Nos. 68-69. Furthermore, Plaintiffs did not deny that they have no evidence supporting their
20 contention that MNAO knew and was aware from prior accidents, prior lawsuits, and prior
21 warranty claims that the Subject Vehicle’s seat back was allegedly defective; Plaintiffs simply
22 objected that the request was “impermissibly compound,” refusing to provide a substantive
23 answer. UMF Nos. 64-65.
24 Clearly, Plaintiffs do not possess, and cannot obtain, evidence supporting their claim for
25 punitive damages against MNAO, since no such evidence exists.
26 ///
27 III
28 !!!
2032454.1/36-035 13
MAZDA MOTOR OF AMERICA, INC. dba MAZDA NORTH AMERICAN OPERATIONS’ NOTICE OF
MOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES
1 C. Contrary to Plaintiffs’ Baseless Assertions, MNAO Does Not Design,
2 Manufacture, or Install Standard Original Equipment Components into
3 Mazda Vehicles.
4 Plaintiffs baselessly assert that MNAO was involved in the design, manufacturing, and
5 installation process of the Subject Vehicle and the allegedly defective seat back, and despite
6 knowledge of the alleged defect, the “corporate management” at MNAO continued to authorize
7 these activities for MNAO’s pecuniary gain, whilst failing to warn the American public of the
8 alleged defect. While MC designs, tests, and manufactures Mazda vehicles. Plaintiffs’ claims are
9 illogical and inapplicable as applied to MNAO, which is only a distributor of Mazda branded
10 vehicles in the United States.
11 MNAO and MC are independent an
Preview
1 JAMES J. YUKEVICH (SBN 159896) jyukevich@yukelaw. com E-FILED 2 NINA J. KIM (SBN 251593) 11/4/2019 1:16 PM nkim@yukelaw. com Superior Court of California 3 JESSE YANCO (SBN 308866) County of Fresno jyanco@yukelaw. com 4 By: C. York, Deputy ARTHUR L. SUN (SBN 325227) asun@yukelaw. com 5 YUKEVICH I CAVANAUGH 355 S. Grand Avenue, 15th Floor 6 Los Angeles, California 90071-1560 Telephone: (213) 362-7777 7 Facsimile: (213) 362-7788 Email: eservice@yukelaw.com 8 Attorneys for Defendants 9 MAZDA MOTOR CORPORATION and MAZDA MOTOR OF AMERICA, INC. dba 10 MAZDA NORTH AMERICAN OPERATIONS and LITHIA MOTORS, INC. 11 12 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 13 COUNTY OF FRESNO 14 JUAN AGUIRRE NUNEZ, Individually and CASE NO. 18CECG03469 as the Successor-in-Interest to the Estate of 15 Sandra Aguirre Nunez, Deceased; CRYSTAL DEFENDANT MAZDA MOTOR OF TORRES, Individually; ERIC TORRES, AMERICA, INC. dba MAZDA NORTH 16 Individually; and ABIGAIL AGUIRRE, AMERICAN OPERATIONS’ NOTICE OF Individually, MOTION AND MOTION FOR 17 SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF Plaintiffs, ISSUES; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS 18 AND AUTHORITIES vs. 19 [Filed Concurrently with Separate Statement MAZDA MOTOR CORPORATION; of Undisputed Material Facts; Compendium of 20 MAZDA MOTOR OF AMERICA, INC. dba Evidence; Declaration ofNina J. Kim; MAZDA NORTH AMERICA Declaration of Crystal Ventura; and 21 OPERATIONS; LITHIA MOTORS, INC. as [Proposed] Order] Predecessor-in-Interest to VOLVO OF 22 FRESNO; LYLAC MELANIE TORRES; and Judge: Hon. Jeffrey Y. Hamilton DOES 1 through 50, inclusive. Date: January 16, 2020 23 Time: 1:30 p.m. Defendants. Dept.: 501 24 Action Filed: September 18, 2018 25 Trial Date: February 18, 2020 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 2032454.1 /36-035 MAZDA MOTOR OF AMERICA, INC. dba MAZDA NORTH AMERICAN OPERATIONS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 2 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES..............................................................8 3 I. INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................... 8 4 II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY/STATEMENT OF FACTS...................................................9 5 A. Plaintiffs’ Unsupported Conclusions Concerning Punitive Damages..................10 6 B. To Date, Plaintiffs Have Provided Factually Devoid Discovery Responses.......11 7 C. Contrary to Plaintiffs’ Baseless Assertions, MNAO Does Not Design, 8 Manufacture, or Install Standard Original Equipment Components into Mazda Vehicles.................................................................................................... 14 9 III. SUMMARY ADJUDICATION STANDARD................................................................. 15 10 A. The Court May Grant Summary Adjudication to Dispose of any 11 Meritless Causes of Action, Including a Claim for Punitive Damages................15 12 B. Punitive Damages are Disfavored Under the Law, and the Court may Dispose of a Claim for Punitive Damages Through Summary Adjudication......16 L < N 13 IV. ARGUMENT.....................................................................................................................18 14 A. MNAO is Entitled to Summary Adjudication on Plaintiffs’ Claim for Punitive n aHs 15 16 Damages.................................................................................................................18 1. Plaintiffs’ Reliance on Conclusory Allegations and Failure to .< Provide Supporting Evidence in Discovery are Insufficient to 17 Survive Summary Adjudication................................................................ 18 18 2. Plaintiffs Have No Evidence that Any Officer, Director, or Managing Agent of Defendant Acted with Oppression, 19 Fraud, or Malice, or Authorized or Ratified Such Conduct......................21 20 B. MNAO is Entitled to Summary Adjudication on Plaintiffs’ Claim for Punitive Negligent Products Liability................................................................................. 22 21 1. Plaintiffs Have No Evidence that MNAO Acted 22 Negligently in Importing and Distributing the Subject Vehicle...............24 23 2. Plaintiffs Have Not Provided Any Evidence that MNAO Negligently Failed to Warn of Any Alleged Danger 24 Associated with the Subject Vehicle...................................................... 25 25 V. CONCLUSION................................................................................... 25 26 27 28 2032454.1/36-035 2 MAZDA MOTOR OF AMERICA, INC. dba MAZDA NORTH AMERICAN OPERATIONS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) 3 Cases 4 ABCO, LLC V. Eversley, 5 213 Cal. App. 4th 1093 (2013).................................................................................................. 15 6 Aguilar v. Atl. Richfield Co., 25 Cal. 4th 826 (2001)............................................................................................................... 15 7 Am. Airlines v. Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, 8 96 Cal. App. 4th 1017 (2002).................................................................................................... 18 9 Angie M. v, Superior Court, 10 37 Cal. App. 4th 1217 (1995).................................................................................................... 18 11 Barker v. Lull Engineering Co., 20 Cal. 3d 413 (1978)................................................................................................................ 23 12 Basich v. Allstate Ins. Co., L < 13 87 Cal. App. 4th 1112 (2001).................................................................................................... 16 14 Blegen v. Superior Court, i: N E > hi ^ < ^ n H u ig {J < 15 16 125 Brown v. Cal. App. 3d 959 (1981)..................................................................................................... 17 Superior Court, 44 Cal. 3d 1049 (1988).............................................................................................................. 23 17 Bunnell v. Superior Court, 18 254 Cal. App. 2d 720 (1967)..................................................................................................... 13 19 Catalano v. Superior Court, 82 Cal. App. 4th 91 (2000)........................................................................................................ 16 20 Chavez v. Clock, 21 207 Cal. App. 4th 1283 (2012).............................................................................................. ....23 22 Clauson v. Superior Court, 23 67 Cal. App. 4th 1253 (1998).................................................................................................... 17 24 College Hosp. Inc. v. Superior Court, 8 Cal. 4th 704 (1994)................................................................................................17, 18, 21, 22 25 Crouse v. Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison, 26 61 Cal. App. 4th 1509 (1998)............ .............................................................................. .........16 27 Cruz V. Homebase, 28 83 Cal. App. 4th 160 (2000)................ ................................................................................17, 21 2032454.1 /36-035 3 MAZDA MOTOR OF AMERICA, INC. dba MAZDA NORTH AMERICAN OPERATIONS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES Egan V. Mutual of Omaha, 24 Cal. 3d 809 (1979)................................................................................................................ 18 Combos V. Ashe, 3 158 Cal. App. 2d 517 (1958)..................................................................................................... 17 4 Gonzalez V. Autoliv ASP, Inc., 5 154 Cal.App.4th 780 (2007)...................................................................................................... 24 6 Grieves v. Superior Court, 157 Cal. App. 3d 159 (1984)..................................................................................................... 17 7 Hoch V. Allied-Signal Inc., 8 24 Cal. App. 4th 48 (1994)........................................................................................................ 16 9 Holdgrafer v. Unocal Corp., 10 160 Cal. App. 4th 907 (2008).................................................................................................... 21 11 Hunter v. Pac. Mech. Corp., 37 Cal. App. 4th 1282 (1995).................................................................................................... 19 12 Marron v. Superior Court, L < N 13 108 Cal. App. 4th 1049 (2003).................................................................................................. 15 LJ 3 Z y 14 Merrill v. Navegar, Inc., — > I < 26 Cal. 4th 465 (2001)................................................................................................... 15, 16, 23 u 15 > y n “ 16 Parsons v. Crown Disposal Co., Q y □ [2 i!i 15 Cal. 4th 456 (1997)............................................................................................................... 18 >• 17 Rio Linda Unified School District v. Superior Court, 18 52 Cal. App. 4th 732 (1997)...................................................................................................... 16 19 Roby V. McKesson Corp., 47 Cal. 4th 686 (2009)............................................................................................................... 22 20 21 Roma V. Ford Motor Co., 99 Cal. App 4th 1115 (2002)..................................................................................................... 22 22 Sangster v. Patekau, 23 68 Cal. App. 4th 151 (1998)...................................................................................................... 18 24 Scheiding v. Dinwiddie, 69 Cal. App. 4th 64(1999)........................................................................................................ 19 25 26 Sutter Bay Assoc, v. County of Sutter, 58 Cal. App. 4th 860 (1997)................ ........................................................................ .............16 27 Union Bank v. Superior Court, 28 31 Cal. App. 4th 573 (1995).................................................................................... 16, 19, 20, 24 2032454.1 /36-035 4 MAZDA MOTOR OF AMERICA, INC, dba MAZDA NORTH AMERICAN OPERATIONS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES 1 Webb V. Special Electric Co., Inc., 63 Cal. 4th 167 (2016)......................................................................................................... 23,26 2 White V. Ultramar, Inc., 3 21 Cal. 4th 563 (1999)....................................... ........................................................................21 4 Statutes 5 Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 437c(f)(l)............................................................................................. 15, 16 6 Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 3294(a)............................................................................................... passim 7 Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(o)(2).................................................................................................... 15 8 Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(p)(2).................................................................................................... 16 9 California Civil Code § 3294(b)...................................................................................................... 21 10 11 California Code of Civil Procedure 2030.310(a)............................................................................ 20 12 California Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.240...............................................................................12 13 14 S N 15 E ^ > < fl.115 u o; 16 5 < 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2032454.1/36-035 MAZDA MOTOR OF AMERICA, INC. dba MAZDA NORTH AMERICAN OPERATIONS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES 1 TO THE HONORABLE COURT, ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS 2 HEREIN: 3 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on January 16, 2020, at 1:30 p.m., or as soon thereafter as 4 the matter may be heard in Department 501 of the above-entitled Court, located at 1130 O Street, 5 Fresno, California, 93721, Defendant MAZDA MOTOR OF AMERICA, INC. dba MAZDA 6 NORTH AMERICAN OPERATIONS (“MNAO”) will, and hereby does, move this Court for an 7 order granting summary adjudication against Plaintiffs JUAN AGUIRRE NUNEZ, individually 8 and as the successor-in-interest to the Estate of Sandra Aguirre Nunez, deceased; CRYSTAL 9 TORRES, individually; ERIC TORRES, individually; and ABIGAIL AGUIRRE, individually E D 10 (collectively the “Plaintiffs”), as to the following issues: 0 □ H 'D m 11 ISSUE NO. 1; Plaintiffs’ claim for punitive or exemplary damages fails as a matter of law I - I-rL Z ^ 12 because Plaintiffs do not provide “clear and convincing evidence” that MNAO acted with ^ 0 t fl' L < 13 “oppression, fraud, or malice” as required under Civil Code § 3294 to support a claim for punitive y 3 Z y 14 or exemplary damages. > < 15 ISSUE NO. 2: Plaintiffs’ second cause of action for Negligent Products Liability fails a > < y u K \2 j y 3 s 16 matter of law, as Plaintiffs cannot establish that MNAO acted negligently in importing and 17 distributing the Subject Vehicle, or that MNAO negligently failed to warn of any alleged danger 0 tn «)0 tn in 18 associated with the Subject Vehicle. PI 19 /// 20 /// 21 /// 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 2032454.1/36-035 A MAZDA MOTOR OF AMERICA, INC. dba MAZDA NORTH AMERICAN OPERATIONS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES 1 This motion is based upon this notice, the attached Memorandum of Points and 2 Authorities, the Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts, the Compendium of Evidence, 3 the Declaration of Nina J. Kim, the Declaration of Crystal Ventura, and upon such other oral and 4 documentary evidence that may be presented at the hearing on this motion, all of which are hereby 5 incorporated by reference. 6 7 DATED: October 31, 2019 YUKEVICH I CAVANAUGH 8 9 By: 10 James J. Yukevich Nina J. Kim 11 Jesse Yanco Arthur E. Sun 12 Attorneys for Defendants MAZDA MOTOR L < N 13 CORPORATION and MAZDA MOTOR OF hi J AMERICA, INC. dba MAZDA NORTH Z y 14 AMERICAN OPERATIONS and LITHIA > N N MOTORS, INC. > U < < C u y y J n Q. bJ ii ui u 15 16 □ 0 >• 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2032454,1/36-035 MAZDA MOTOR OF AMERICA, INC. dba MAZDA NORTH AMERICAN OPERATIONS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 1. INTRODUCTION This product liability action arises from a multiple-vehicle accident, caused by co defendant Lylac Torres, who was driving her vehiele at a high rate of speed, and slammed into a 5 line a vehicles stopped in the number three lane of SR-41 northbound freeway, propelling Torres’ 6 vehicle into the rear of the deeedent, Sandra Nunez’s (“Decedenf’) 2015 Mazda3 (the “Subject 7 Vehicle”). Plaintiffs allege that the Subjeet Vehicle contained a defective seat baek which 8 collapsed after Deeedent was rear-ended while traveling on the State Route 41 in Fresno, 9 California, eausing her to sustain fatal injuries. 10 As part of Plaintiffs’ claims for strict products liability and negligence, they unjustifiably 11 seek the imposition of punitive or exemplary damages against MNAO—which distributes Mazda 12 branded vehicles in the United States only after they are sold to MNAO in Japan from Mazda L < 13 Motor Corporation (“MC”), the Subject Vehicle’s manufacturer—premised upon wholly- 111 3 Z y 14 unsupported theories that MNAO designed, manufactured, and installed the allegedly defective > " N > u < < q; n w ^u Pwi 12 adjudication. 0 > O' < N \Q 13 n. PROCEDURAL HISTQRY/STATEMENT OF FACTS z lii □ o: Z 0 S 14 Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) on July 22, 2019, alleging the li.r. y > j -N2 < 15 following two causes of action against MNAO, MC and Lithia Motors, Inc.: (1) strict products > y < o; I a lij □ ’ (0 16 liability; and (2) negligent products liability. See MNAO’s Separate Statement of Undisputed y 13 D >- 17 Material Facts No. 1 (“UMF”). Plaintiffs also filed a third cause of action against Defendant 18 Lylac Melanie Torres for motor vehicle negligence.' Id. 19 Plaintiffs allege that on August 22, 2018, decedent, Sandra Aguirre Nunez (“Decedenf’), 20 was driving a 2015 Mazda3 (“Subject Vehicle”) when her vehicle was struck from behind by a 21 2007 Toyota Camry driven by defendant Lylac Torres. UMF No 2. Plaintiffs allege that as a 22 result of the rear impact to the Subject Vehicle, the driver’s seat back of the Subject Vehicle 23 collapsed rearward, which allowed Decedent’s body to become unrestrained and her to move 24 reward in relation to her vehicle. UMF No 4. Plaintiffs allege that her body was thrown into the 25 26 Plaintiffs Juan Nunez and Sandra Nunez filed their initial Complaint in this matter on September 18, 2018. Plaintiffs’ complaint was thereafter amended on July 22, 2019, to reflect her death on May 17, 2019. Her alleged 27 natural born children. Crystal Torres, Eric Torres, and Abigail Aguirre, were also added as additional plaintiffs. Other than the above, the allegations in Plaintiffs’ FAC remain unchanged from the initial Complaint. 28 2032454.1/36-035 MAZDA MOTOR OF AMERICA, INC. dba MAZDA NORTH AMERICAN OPERATIONS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES 1 rear compartment of the Subject Vehicle where she struck her head on the rear passenger seat, 2 causing permanent head and spinal cord injuries, and rendering decedent a quadriplegic, and 3 which eventually caused her death on May 17, 2019 (“Subject Accident”)- Id. 4 A. Plaintiffs’ Unsupported Conclusions Concerning Punitive Damages. 5 Plaintiffs included a claim for punitive or exemplary damages against MNAO on their first 6 and second causes of action, composed of Paragraphs 27-29 of the FAC. UMF No. 4. In relevant 7 part, Plaintiffs plead the following conclusory allegations against MNAO: 8 “ MNAO engaged in “intentional conduct... in order to advance [MNAO’s] pecuniary interests . ...” UMF No. 5. 9 10 ® MNAO has known since the early 1970s that MNAO’s “vehicles’ front seat backs, when the seats are occupied, are so weak and poorly reinforced, such that they can and 11 do collapse rearward and occupants of those seats will strike the rear seats of the vehicles in a 30-35 mile per hour rear end collision, and that when this occurs the 12 seatbelt restraint system becomes almost entirely ineffective.” UMF No. 6. t;* L < N 13 « In February 1992, CBS aired a nationwide “60-Minutes” segment, which MNAO was liJ □ aware, which exposed this problem with MNAO’s “seats and seatbelt restraint systems Z 14 LJ i:N . ...” UMF No. 7. 111 Z 15 D > < I a ® In 1976, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (“NHTSA”) enacted UjC 111 {j 16 FMVSS 301 .... The films of these FMVSS 310 tests reveal that “virtually all” of MNAO’s “vehicles’ front seat backs in vehicles manufactured since the FMVSS 301 17 tests were first required, failed and collapsed backward . .. which [MNAO was] clearly 18 aware.” UMF Nos. 8-9. 19 ® Following the February 1992 “60-Minutes” presentation and a “flood of letters from the public,” that Plaintiffs are informed and believe that MNAO “commissioned 20 various Seat Back Strength Task Forces comprised of numerous engineers ... to look into the seat back failure issues and seatbelt restraint issues ....” UMF No. 10. 21 22 ® Since the “60-Minutes” presentation, MNAO knew and was well aware from prior accidents, lawsuits, incidents, and warranty claims, from the NHTA’s Vehicle Owner 23 Questionnaires (“VOQ’s”), and from their FMVSS testing, that the Subject Vehicle’s seatbacks “were too weak and were incapable of withstanding foreseeable, modest, 24 rear-end impacts at closure speeds as low as 30 miles per hour . ...” UMF No. 11. 25 ® Despite knowledge of all of the foregoing, MNAO “knowingly and purposefully 26 designed, manufactured, and install, and continued to design, manufacture, and install into the SUBJECT VEHICLE, such unsafe and defective passenger seats and seatbelt 27 restraint systems ... all for the purposes of advancing [MNAO’s] pecuniary interests . . . .’’UMFNo. 12. 28 2032454.1 / 36-035 10 MAZDA MOTOR OF AMERICA, INC. dba MAZDA NORTH AMERICAN OPERATIONS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES 1 ® MNAO’s conduct was despicable because MNAO “knew and intended that [its] purposeful design, manufacture, and installation into the SUBJECT VEHICLE of such 2 unsafe and defective passenger seats and seatbelt restraint systems ... could kill people . .. UMFNo. 13. 3 4 ® MNAO “further acted despicably, by failing to warn SANDRA and other members of the public, of the risks of death and serious injuries resulting from the defective and 5 unsafe seats and seatbelt restraint systems [MNAO] knowingly and deliberately installed into the SUBJECT VEHICLE . .. and which these defendants willfully and 6 deliberately failed to warn for the purposes of advancing [MNAO’s] pecuniary 7 interests . .. UMF No. 14. 8 “ The decisions made by MNAO “knowingly to design and manufacture the SUBJECT VEHICLE with its defective seats and seat backs, its defective restraint system and 9 components, and their failure to warn of these defects, all in the defective and dangerous manner as alleged herein, were made by corporate management of [MNAO] 10 . .. with respect to the conscious and willful disregard of public safety and were made 11 for [MNAO’s] pecuniary gain regarding the design, manufacture, production, marketing and sale of the SUBJECT VEHICLE.” UMF No. 15. 12 Asa direct and legal result of the aforementioned conduct of [MNAO] an award of It < 13 exemplary and punitive damages against [MNAO] is proper and appropriate to punish [MNAO] and to deter such conduct in the future.” UMF No. 16. 14 S N 15 Despite the foregoing allegations, Plaintiffs’ discovery responses are devoid of any facts > < y (Lin 16 and evidence supporting their claims. Plaintiffs merely rely upon the same conclusions stated < h " 17 above and reiterate these allegations in response to MNAO’s discovery requests, which does not 18 create triable issues of fact. 19 B. To Date, Plaintiffs Have Provided Factually Devoid Discovery Responses. 20 On August 26, 2019, MNAO answered Plaintiffs’ FAC, asserting an affirmative defense 21 that Plaintiffs’ FAC failed to state sufficient facts to warrant punitive damages. UMF Nos. 17-18. 22 Additionally, MNAO propounded detailed discovery requests upon Plaintiffs, requiring them to 23 provide any facts and evidence, not legal conclusions, in support of Plaintiffs’ claims. UMF No. 24 19. 25 For example, MNAO requested that Plaintiffs state all facts, identify all witnesses, and 26 identify and produce all documents supporting their claims that MNAO knew and was well aware 27 from prior accidents, prior lawsuits, and prior warranty claims, that the Subject Vehicle was 28 allegedly defective. UMF Nos. 20, 22, 24, 26. In response. Plaintiffs restated the exact same 2032454.1 /36-035 ^ MAZDA MOTOR OF AMERICA, INC. dba MAZDA NORTH AMERICAN OPERATIONS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES 1 allegation in the FAC, failed to identify a single accident, lawsuit, or warranty claim involving the 2 Subject Vehicle, and failed to identify or produce a single document. UMF Nos 21, 23, 25, 27. 3 Not only that. Plaintiffs objected that they were withholding allegedly responsive documents on 4 the basis of “attorney work-product,” without providing a privilege log pursuant to California 5 Code of Civil Procedure § 2031.240, and surmised that “any additional documents” were in 6 MNAO’s possession. UMF Nos. 27. Despite Plaintiffs flouting their obligations under the 7 Discovery Act, and illogical claim that documents concerning “prior accidents, prior lawsuits and 8 prior warranty claims” as they relate to the Subject Vehicle could possibly fall within the purview 9 of Plaintiffs’ counsel’s works product, the fact remains that Plaintiffs have yet to provide a q: 0 10 scintilla of evidence to support their claims. D J li. I 11 MNAO also requested that Plaintiffs provide evidence supporting their claims that MNAO h 1 u □ ^ 12 knew the Subject Vehicle’s seatback was allegedly defective based upon Federal Motor Vehicle □ lii h ^ L Ch ^ iZ < N m 13 Safety Standard 301 tests. UMF Nos. 28, 30, 32, 34. Again, Plaintiffs merely restated the same z n q: 0 n It ^ 14 allegation in the FAC, failed to identify a single witness, and failed to produce a single document. J N 1:N 15 u Z > iij Z < a: y Q. u I/] U 16 See UMF Nos. 29, 31, 33, 35. Plaintiffs provided no information as to when these alleged tests were performed, who performed the tests, the nature of the defects discovered in the tests, that the ^ u n < □ I 17 test results did not meet applicable safety standards, what makes, models and model years of 0 \n m m 18 vehicles the tests involved, and whether the tests even involved the Subject Vehicle or the same (1 19 seating platform as the Subject Vehicle. See id. Such conclusions are clearly insufficient to meet 20 the heightened “clear and convincing” standard of evidentiary proof needed to establish punitive 21 damages. See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 3294(a) (punitive damages may only be recovered “where it 22 is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud 23 or malice.”). 24 Similarly, Plaintiffs provided zero evidence supporting their claims that MNAO knew and 25 was aware from “NHTSA Vehicle Owner’s Questionnaires (‘VOQs’)” that the Subject Vehicle 26 was defective. UMF Nos. 36-43. Moreover, such documents are publicly available documents, 27 maintained by NHSTA in its database. Therefore, Plaintiffs could have compiled any evidence 28 supporting their claims if such evidence existed; Plaintiffs cannot excuse their failure to gather 2032454.1 /36-035 ^2 MAZDA MOTOR OF AMERICA, INC. dba MAZDA NORTH AMERICAN OPERATIONS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES evidence by merely alleging on information and belief that MNAO possesses the same. See e.g., Bunnell v. Superior Court, 254 Cal. App. 2d 720, 723-24 (1967) (“The purpose of the Discovery Act is to permit a party to prepare himself for trial, not to require one party, at his expense, to prepare the case for his opponent.”) Plaintiffs provided zero evidence supporting their claims that MNAO knew and was aware from a single, 1992 “60-Minutes” video—which does not depict the Subject Vehicle—that the Subject Vehicle was defective. UMF Nos. 44-51. Plaintiffs provided zero evidence supporting their claims that MNAO knowingly installed a defective seatback into the Subject Vehicle to advance MNAO’s pecuniary interests. UMF Nos. 52-59. Indeed, Plaintiffs admitted these 10 allegations were made without any confidence in their accuracy, stating '"[rjesponding party is 11 currently unaware of any specific facts to support the contention^ UMF Nos. 45, 53 (emphasis □ 12 added). Q (n < 13 In contradiction to the above allegations. Plaintiffs, in their responses to MNAO’s y z D a 0 fi 14 Z y y ^ Requests for Admission, Set One, admitted that: (1) MNAO did not defectively design or J N S N < u LI Z u 15 manufacture the Subject Vehicle; and (2) MNAO did not knowingly install a defective seatback E“ in 0 >Lj■ ^ < 17 admitted that they have no evidence to support their clam that MNAO’s “own automotive 0 □J (fl in m 18 engineers recommended simple methods to correcf’ the Subject Vehicle’s alleged defects. UMF d 19 Nos. 68-69. Furthermore, Plaintiffs did not deny that they have no evidence supporting their 20 contention that MNAO knew and was aware from prior accidents, prior lawsuits, and prior 21 warranty claims that the Subject Vehicle’s seat back was allegedly defective; Plaintiffs simply 22 objected that the request was “impermissibly compound,” refusing to provide a substantive 23 answer. UMF Nos. 64-65. 24 Clearly, Plaintiffs do not possess, and cannot obtain, evidence supporting their claim for 25 punitive damages against MNAO, since no such evidence exists. 26 /// 27 III 28 !!! 2032454.1/36-035 13 MAZDA MOTOR OF AMERICA, INC. dba MAZDA NORTH AMERICAN OPERATIONS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES 1 C. Contrary to Plaintiffs’ Baseless Assertions, MNAO Does Not Design, 2 Manufacture, or Install Standard Original Equipment Components into 3 Mazda Vehicles. 4 Plaintiffs baselessly assert that MNAO was involved in the design, manufacturing, and 5 installation process of the Subject Vehicle and the allegedly defective seat back, and despite 6 knowledge of the alleged defect, the “corporate management” at MNAO continued to authorize 7 these activities for MNAO’s pecuniary gain, whilst failing to warn the American public of the 8 alleged defect. While MC designs, tests, and manufactures Mazda vehicles. Plaintiffs’ claims are 9 illogical and inapplicable as applied to MNAO, which is only a distributor of Mazda branded 10 vehicles in the United States. 11 MNAO and MC are independent an