Judge: Andrew E. Cooper, Case: 24CHCV01788, Date: 2025-05-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24CHCV01788    Hearing Date: May 30, 2025    Dept: F51

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH VALLEY DISTRICT

DEPARTMENT F-51

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Motion filed: 2/3/25

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Luis Gonzalez (“Plaintiff”)

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

NOTICE: OK

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

TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is granted. Plaintiff to separately file his proposed FAC within 10 days of this hearing.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff brings this action under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (Civil Code § 1790 et seq.) for a vehicle he purchased on or around 3/12/22, for which Defendant issued the manufacturer’s express warranty. (Compl. ¶¶ 6, 10.) On 5/9/24, Plaintiff filed his complaint, alleging against Defendant the following causes of action: (1) Violation of Song-Beverly Act Breach of Express Warranty; and (2) Violation of Song-Beverly Act Breach of Implied Warranty. 6/10/24, Defendant filed its answer.

On 2/3/25, Plaintiff filed the instant motion for leave to file a FAC. On 5/16/25, Defendant filed its opposition. On 5/20/25, Plaintiff filed his reply.

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, Plaintiff asserts that “Plaintiff intends to replace the claim under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act with a cause of action under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. This amendment ensures that the complaint is brought under the proper legal framework in light of the new law.” (Pl.’s Mot. 5:4–8.)

The proposed amendment was prompted by 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, Plaintiff determined that his current claims were no longer viable and would be dismissed. As such, Plaintiff now seeks leave to assert claims under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2301–2312, et seq., to prevent dismissal of this action.

In opposition, Defendant argues that “Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend should be denied for at least three separate reasons: (1) Plaintiff unjustifiably delayed seeking to add the proposed new cause of action; (2) allowing Plaintiff to add a new cause of action at this stage would unfairly prejudice GM; and (3) any attempt to pursue the new cause of action in Plaintiff’s proposed amended complaint would be futile.” (Def.’s Opp. 3:10–14.) “Plaintiff’s proposed First Amended Complaint does not state a viable claim under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. This is because Plaintiff’s claim for an alleged violation of Magnuson-Moss is coextensive with their warranty claims brought under Song-Beverly.” (Id. at 7:16–18.)

However, the Court finds that fact that Plaintiff could have included the cause of action in the original complaint does not necessarily mean that Plaintiff unreasonably delayed seeking leave to amend. Rather, Plaintiff was unaware that he lacked standing to sue under the Song-Beverly Act before the decision in Rodriguez, and filed this motion thereafter. The Court finds that Plaintiff did not unreasonably delay in moving for leave to amend. Additionally, although Defendant argues it would suffer prejudice because it would need to conduct additional discovery regarding the new cause of action, the Court notes that no trial date has been set in this action, therefore there is relatively little prejudice to Defendant should Plaintiff be granted leave to amend. To the extent that Defendant challenges the legal viability of the proposed amendment, Defendant is free to raise this argument on demurrer.

Based on the foregoing, and the court’s liberal policy on granting leave to amend, the Court grants Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a first amended complaint with the proposed changes.

CONCLUSION

The motion is granted. Plaintiff to separately file his proposed FAC within 10 days of this hearing.