Motion-Secondary: Mcdowell -v - American Honda Motor Co., Inc et al Print

• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                WILSON TURNER KOSMO LLP                                                                       ELECTRONICALLY FILED (Auto
     ELIZABETH C' REIN (297593)                                                                    SUPERIOR COURT 0F CALIFO RNIA
                                                                                                                                    >




     OLIVIA      J-   MINER (306546)                                                               COUNTY 0F SAN BERNARDINC
                                                                                                               '



     402 West Broadway, Suite 1600
     San Diego, California 92101
     Telephone: (619) 236-9600
     Facsimile: (619) 236-9669
     E-mail: erein@wilsonturnerkosmo.com
     E-mail: ominer@wilsonturnerkosmo.com
     E-mail: amichel@wilsonturnerkosmo.com
     E-mail: hondaeservice@wilsontumerkosmo.com



     Attorneys for Defendant
     AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC
     (erroneously sued herein as a California
     Corporation)
10

11                             SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
12                                            COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
13

14   RHONDA MCDOWELL, an individual,                                         Case N0. CIVSB221 1661

15                        Plaintiffs,                                        DEFENDANT AMERICAN HONDA
                                                                             MOTOR CO., INC.’S REPLY TO
16          V.                                                               OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO
                                                                             COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO
17   AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC, a                                        SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES AND
     California Corporation, and DOES through 10,    1                       FOR SANCTIONS
18   inclusive,
                                                                             Complaint Filed: June     9,   2022
19                        Defendants.
                                                                             Date:         January 29, 2024
20                                                                           Time:         8:30 am.
                                                                             Dept:         S30
21                                                                           Judge:        Hon. Brian S McCarVille
                                                                             Trial Date:   Not   set
22

23   I.     INTRODUCTION
24          Plaintiff Rhonda            McDowell’s       (“Plaintiff”)   Opposition t0 Defendant American Honda Motor

25   CO., Inc.’s      (“AHM”) Motion to Compel             Further Responses t0 Special Interrogatories (“Motion t0

26   Compel”)      is   riddled with far-fetched excuses, including the occurrence 0f calendaring errors and

27   blame 0n other attorneys           at Quill   and Arrow, LLP, for Plaintiff s         inability t0   respond to   AHM’S meet

28

                                                                         1

      DEFENDANT AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC.’S REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL
              FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES AND FOR SANCTIONS
     and confer communications and waiting               t0 serve   amended responses          to the Special Interrogatories


     0n January     16,   2024, the day Plaintiff s Opposition to the Motion t0 Compel was due.

              In addition, Contrary to Plaintiff s contention, Plaintiff has not provided                  amended Code-

     Complaint responses.         Plaintiff’s     amended responses d0 not cure          the deficiencies set forth in      AHM’S

     Motion   t0   Compel. As such,        AHM’S Motion t0 Compel             is   not moot.

              For the reasons     set forth therein,     AHM respectfully requests an order of this Court
     compelling further responses t0          AHM’S      Special Interrogatories and awarding monetary sanctions 0f


     $2,1 12.50.

     II.      ARGUMENT
10            A.          Plaintiff’s   Responses Are Not Code-Compliant

11            At   the last minute, Plaintiff provided        amended responses.          Plaintiff s   amended responses d0

12   not address the issues set forth in the Motion to            Compel and accompanying             separate statement. For


13   example, Plaintiff’s original responses contained improper boilerplate objections. Plaintiff asserted

14   the   many 0f the same      obj ections in his     amended responses. Furthermore,            Plaintiff’s   amended

15   responses are not “complete and straightforward” as required by California                      Code 0f Civil Procedure

16   section 2030.220(a).        On     such salient example     is set   forth below:


17            Special Interrogatory 14. This interrogatory requests facts supporting Plaintiff’s contention

18   that the subject vehicle      was not conformed        to   warranty Within 30-days. Plaintiff’s amended

19   response, subj ect t0 impermissible boilerplate obj ections, fails to provide information about

20   confirming the subject vehicle           to   warranty Within 30-days. Specifically, Plaintiffs responded as

21   follows: “Plaintiff delivered the subj ect vehicle to an authorized                 AHM repair facility for repair 0f the
22   nonconformities on multiple separate occasions beginning on or around March                          2,   2022.   On each 0f

23   these occasions, Defendant and           its   agents assured Plaintiff that the complaints and defects were             fixed

24   0r repaired. Despite these         numerous     repair attempts t0 the subj ect vehicle, Defendant           was unable   t0


25   conform   Plaintiff’s vehicle t0 the applicable express              and implied warranties and the vehicle

26   continues t0 underperform and/or exhibit these defects and nonconformities.”

27

28

                                                                    2
      DEFENDANT AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR C0,, INC.’S REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL
              FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES AND FOR SANCTIONS