JACINTO TALAMANTE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC., et al. Defendants.
Case No.: BC616822
Hearing Date: February 27, 2017
[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE:
MOTION FOR TERMINATING, ISSUE AND/OR EVIDENTIARY SANCTIONS FOR SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE
BACKGROUND
This is a “lemon-law” action arising out of the purchase of a vehicle manufactured by Defendant Kia Motors America, Inc. (“Defendant”). Plaintiffs Jacinto Talamante and Victoria L. Salas (“Plaintiffs”) purchased the subject 2011 Kia Sorrento on January 28, 2012. Plaintiffs allege that various defects and nonconformities manifested in the subject vehicle, and that Plaintiffs contacted Defendant to request that their vehicle be repurchased or replaced, but were informed that the vehicle did not qualify for repurchase or replacement under the Song-Beverly Act. Plaintiffs assert a cause of action for violation of the Song-Beverly Act.
DISCUSSION
“Destroying evidence in response to a discovery request after litigation
Hearing Date
February 27, 2017
Type
Breach Contrct/Warnty (Sellr Pltf) (General Jurisdiction)
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
JACINTO TALAMANTE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC., et al. Defendants.
Case No.: BC616822
Hearing Date: February 27, 2017
[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE:
MOTION FOR TERMINATING, ISSUE AND/OR EVIDENTIARY SANCTIONS FOR SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE
BACKGROUND
This is a “lemon-law” action arising out of the purchase of a vehicle manufactured by Defendant Kia Motors America, Inc. (“Defendant”). Plaintiffs Jacinto Talamante and Victoria L. Salas (“Plaintiffs”) purchased the subject 2011 Kia Sorrento on January 28, 2012. Plaintiffs allege that various defects and nonconformities manifested in the subject vehicle, and that Plaintiffs contacted Defendant to request that their vehicle be repurchased or replaced, but were informed that the vehicle did not qualify for repurchase or replacement under the Song-Beverly Act. Plaintiffs assert a cause of action for violation of the Song-Beverly Act.
DISCUSSION
“Destroying evidence in response to a discovery request after litigation