Judge: Andrew E. Cooper, Case: 23CHCV02769, Date: 2025-06-11 Tentative Ruling

Counsel wishing to submit on a tentative ruling may inform the clerk or courtroom assisant in North Valley Department F51, 9425 Penfield Ave., Chatsworth, CA 91311, at (818) 407-2251.  Please be aware that unless all parties submit, the matter will still be called for hearing and may be argued by any appearing/non-submitting parties. If the matter is submitted on the court's tentative ruling by all parties, counsel for moving party shall give notice of ruling. This may be done by incorporating verbatim the court's tentative ruling. The tentative ruling may be extracted verbatim by copying and specially pasting, as unformatted text, from the Los Angeles Superior Court’s website, http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org. All hearings on law and motion and other calendar matters are generally NOT transcribed by a court reporter unless one is provided by the party(ies).

Case Number: 23CHCV02769    Hearing Date: June 11, 2025    Dept: F51

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH VALLEY DISTRICT

DEPARTMENT F-51

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Motion filed: 5/8/25

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiffs Vanessa Charlene Ramirez; and Brian Cuvas (collectively, “Plaintiffs”)

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant General Motors, LLC (“Defendant”)

NOTICE: OK

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order granting Plaintiffs leave to file a first amended complaint (“FAC”).

TENTATIVE RULING: The unopposed motion is granted. Plaintiffs to separately file their proposed FAC within 10 days of this hearing.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs bring this action under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (Civil Code § 1790 et seq.) for a vehicle they purchased on or around 4/30/22, for which Defendant issued the manufacturer’s express warranty. (Compl. ¶¶ 3, 5.)

On 9/14/23, Plaintiffs filed their complaint, alleging against Defendant the following causes of action: (1) Breach of Written Warranty Pursuant to the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act; (2) Breach of Implied Warranty Pursuant to the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act; (3) Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act; and (4) Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. On 10/20/23, Defendant filed its answer.

On 5/8/25, Plaintiffs filed the instant motion for leave to file a FAC. No opposition has been filed to date.

ANALYSIS

“Any judge, at any time before or after commencement of trial, in the furtherance of justice, and upon such terms as may be proper, may allow the amendment of any pleading or pretrial conference order.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 576.) “In a case where such an amendment can be made in furtherance of justice without jeopardizing the rights of an adverse party, it should be allowed. This, of course, assumes that neither the cause of action nor the issues involved therein will be radically changed by the proposed amendment.” (Thomasian v. Superior Court (1953) 122 Cal.App.2d 322, 335–336.)

Rule 3.1324 of the California Rules of Court requires a party moving for leave to amend to: “(1)¿Include a copy of the proposed amendment or amended pleading, which must be serially numbered to differentiate it from previous pleadings or amendments; (2) State what allegations in the previous pleading are proposed to be deleted, if any, and where, by page, paragraph, and line number, the deleted allegations are located; and (3) State what allegations are proposed to be added to the previous pleading, if any, and where, by page, paragraph, and line number, the additional allegations are located.” (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.1324(a).) “A separate declaration must accompany the motion and must specify: (1) The effect of the amendment; (2) Why the amendment is necessary and proper; (3) When the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered; and (4) The reasons why the request for amendment was not made earlier.” (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.1324(b).)

Here, Plaintiffs “seek to (1) add Dalia Car Company, Inc., the dealership that sold the vehicle to Plaintiffs, as a Defendant; (2) add the following causes of action against one or more Defendants: (a) Violation of the California Uniform Commercial Code – Breach of Express Warranties, (b) Violation of the California Uniform Commercial Code – Breach of Implied Warranty, (c) Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing; and (d) add a cause of action under the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) based on false and misleading statements made at the time of sale.” (Pls.’ Mot. 6:14–20.)

The proposed amendment was prompted by Defendant’s filing of a motion for summary judgment against Plaintiff’s Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act claims, based on the Court of Appeal’s ruling in Rodriguez v. FCA US LLC (2024) 17 Cal.5th 189, which held that the Song-Beverly Act does not apply to sale of vehicles with an unexpired manufacturer’s new car warranty unless the new car warranty was issued with the sale. (17 Cal.5th at 195–197.) Such vehicles are not new motor vehicles under the Song-Beverly Act. (Ibid.) After Rodriguez was issued on 10/31/24, Plaintiffs determined that their Song-Beverly claims were no longer viable, and dismissed them on 2/11/25. As such, Plaintiffs now seek leave to assert additional claims under the California Uniform Commercial Code and Consumer Legal Remedies Act.

The Court notes that Defendant has not filed any opposition to the instant motion, and that trial is set for 8/10/26. Based on the foregoing, and the court’s liberal policy on granting leave to amend, the Court grants Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a first amended complaint with the proposed changes.

CONCLUSION

The unopposed motion is granted. Plaintiffs to separately file their proposed FAC within 10 days of this hearing.