On October 16, 2020 a
Motion,Ex Parte
was filed
involving a dispute between
Sadigov, Elchin,
and
General Motors, Llc, A Delaware Limited Liability Company,
for Breach of Contract/Warranty Unlimited
in the District Court of San Bernardino County.
Preview
ORvGINAL
Mary Arens McBride, Esq. SBN: 282459
Alexandria O. Pappas, Esq. (SBN 326149) SIKN E‘E’
ERSKINE LAW GROUP, APC
1576 N. Batavia Street, Suite A
MAUJN
Orange, California 92867
Tel: (949) 777-6032
Fax: (714) 844-9035
marensmcbride@erskinelaw.com
apappas@erskinelaw.com
Attorneys GENERAL MOTORS LLC
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
\OOOQQ
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO — CIVIL DIVISION
10
ELCHIN SADIGOV, an individual, Case No. CIVD82023395
11
Plaintiff, GENERAL MOTORS LLC’S
12 OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S
13
vs. MOTION TO STAY ACTION PENDING
THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME A8
14 GENERAL MOTORS LLC, A Delaware COURT’S DECISION IN EVERARDO
Limited Liability Company; and DOES l RODRIGUEZ, ETAL VI FCA LLC
15 through 20, inclusive, XVd
Filed Concurrently With:
16
Defendants. 1) Declaration of Alexandria 0.
17 Pappas
VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
18 Hearing Date: March 22, 2023
Hearing Time: 8:30 a.m.
19
Department: S33
20
Action Filed: October 16, 2020
21 Trial Date: May 15, 2023
22
Assignedfor allpurposes t0 the Hon.
23 Winston Keh in Dept. S33
24
25
26
27
28
1
GENERAL MOTORS LLC‘S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STAY ACTION PENDING THE CALIFORNIA
SUPREME COURT’S DECISION IN EVERARDO RODRIGUEZ, ETAL V. FCA LLC
I. INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff Elchin Sadigov brings this Motion seeking t0 stay this action pending the
resolution of California Supreme Court’s review of Rodriguez v. FCA US, LLC, No. E073766, 77
\OOO\IO\U‘I-bwl\)#
Cal.App.5th 209, review granted July 13, 2022 (“Rodriguez”). There are zero grounds for
staying this case in light of Rodriguez, however, and doing so at this stage would be patently
unfair to GM. The Court should therefore deny Plaintiff s Motion.
As set forth more fully in GM’s motion for adjudication, GM is entitled t0 summary
adjudication in its favor on Plaintiff’s Song-Beverly claims because Rodriguez prohibits Plaintiff
from pursuing claims under Song-Beverly for a vehicle Plaintiff purchased used. (See Rodriguez,
77 Cal.App.5th at 209; see also GM’s Motion for Summary Adjudication). Thus, the mere fact
that the California Supreme Court has granted review of Rodriguez does not justify staying this
case. To the contrary, Plaintiffs request for a stay is an attempt to delay the inevitable, and the
Court should therefore deny Plaintiffs request for the sake ofjudicial efficiency.
Moreover, Plaintiff has failed t0 show any good cause for granting a stay, and GM would
be prejudiced if the Court were t0 do so. GM timely filed its original motion for summary
judgment almost eight months ago — on July 6, 2022. (See GM’s Motion for Summary
NNNNNNNNNt—Ht—t—t—h—HHHH
Judgment). Only after GM’s reply papers were filed 0n September 16, 2022 did Plaintiff file his
OONQUIAWNHOKOOONGUIAWNr—‘O
motion for leave t0 amend — seeking to reassert his meritless Song-Beverly claims and adding an
equally meritless claim under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, resulting in a continuance of
GM’s summary judgment motion. Now — after Plaintiff has amended his Complaint and GM has
been forced to file yet another motion seeking summary adjudication on the meritless Song-
Beverly claims, Plaintiff seeks to stay this case pending the outcome of Rodriguez. And notably,
Plaintiff continues to litigate this aggressively even now despite its pending stay motion -
appearing before the Court just last week to compel the deposition of GM’s expert. No doubt,
Plaintiff is playing games with GM and with the Court. Plaintiffs motion t0 stay the case is
nothing more than another tactic to prevent GM’s MSA from being heard. Plaintiff’s actions have
GENERAL MOTORS LLC’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION T0 STAY THIS ACTION PENDING THE CALIFORNIA
SUPREME COURT’S DECISION IN EVERARDO RODRIGUEZ, ETAL V. FCA LLC
Document Filed Date
April 13, 2023
Case Filing Date
October 16, 2020
Category
Breach of Contract/Warranty Unlimited
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
ORvGINAL Mary Arens McBride, Esq. SBN: 282459 Alexandria O. Pappas, Esq. (SBN 326149) SIKN E‘E’ ERSKINE LAW GROUP, APC 1576 N. Batavia Street, Suite A MAUJN Orange, California 92867 Tel: (949) 777-6032 Fax: (714) 844-9035 marensmcbride@erskinelaw.com apappas@erskinelaw.com Attorneys GENERAL MOTORS LLC SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA \OOOQQ FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO — CIVIL DIVISION 10 ELCHIN SADIGOV, an individual, Case No. CIVD82023395 11 Plaintiff, GENERAL MOTORS LLC’S 12 OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S 13 vs. MOTION TO STAY ACTION PENDING THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME A8 14 GENERAL MOTORS LLC, A Delaware COURT’S DECISION IN EVERARDO Limited Liability Company; and DOES l RODRIGUEZ, ETAL VI FCA LLC 15 through 20, inclusive, XVd Filed Concurrently With: 16 Defendants. 1) Declaration of Alexandria 0. 17 Pappas VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV 18 Hearing Date: March 22, 2023 Hearing Time: 8:30 a.m. 19 Department: S33 20 Action Filed: October 16, 2020 21 Trial Date: May 15, 2023 22 Assignedfor allpurposes t0 the Hon. 23 Winston Keh in Dept. S33 24 25 26 27 28 1 GENERAL MOTORS LLC‘S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STAY ACTION PENDING THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT’S DECISION IN EVERARDO RODRIGUEZ, ETAL V. FCA LLC I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Elchin Sadigov brings this Motion seeking t0 stay this action pending the resolution of California Supreme Court’s review of Rodriguez v. FCA US, LLC, No. E073766, 77 \OOO\IO\U‘I-bwl\)# Cal.App.5th 209, review granted July 13, 2022 (“Rodriguez”). There are zero grounds for staying this case in light of Rodriguez, however, and doing so at this stage would be patently unfair to GM. The Court should therefore deny Plaintiff s Motion. As set forth more fully in GM’s motion for adjudication, GM is entitled t0 summary adjudication in its favor on Plaintiff’s Song-Beverly claims because Rodriguez prohibits Plaintiff from pursuing claims under Song-Beverly for a vehicle Plaintiff purchased used. (See Rodriguez, 77 Cal.App.5th at 209; see also GM’s Motion for Summary Adjudication). Thus, the mere fact that the California Supreme Court has granted review of Rodriguez does not justify staying this case. To the contrary, Plaintiffs request for a stay is an attempt to delay the inevitable, and the Court should therefore deny Plaintiffs request for the sake ofjudicial efficiency. Moreover, Plaintiff has failed t0 show any good cause for granting a stay, and GM would be prejudiced if the Court were t0 do so. GM timely filed its original motion for summary judgment almost eight months ago — on July 6, 2022. (See GM’s Motion for Summary NNNNNNNNNt—Ht—t—t—h—HHHH Judgment). Only after GM’s reply papers were filed 0n September 16, 2022 did Plaintiff file his OONQUIAWNHOKOOONGUIAWNr—‘O motion for leave t0 amend — seeking to reassert his meritless Song-Beverly claims and adding an equally meritless claim under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, resulting in a continuance of GM’s summary judgment motion. Now — after Plaintiff has amended his Complaint and GM has been forced to file yet another motion seeking summary adjudication on the meritless Song- Beverly claims, Plaintiff seeks to stay this case pending the outcome of Rodriguez. And notably, Plaintiff continues to litigate this aggressively even now despite its pending stay motion - appearing before the Court just last week to compel the deposition of GM’s expert. No doubt, Plaintiff is playing games with GM and with the Court. Plaintiffs motion t0 stay the case is nothing more than another tactic to prevent GM’s MSA from being heard. Plaintiff’s actions have GENERAL MOTORS LLC’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION T0 STAY THIS ACTION PENDING THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT’S DECISION IN EVERARDO RODRIGUEZ, ETAL V. FCA LLC