Judge: Anne Richardson, Case: 24STCV08572, Date: 2024-09-12 Tentative Ruling

DEPARTMENT 40 - JUDGE ANNE RICHARDSON - LAW AND MOTION RULINGS
The Court issues tentative rulings on certain motions.The tentative ruling will not become the final ruling until the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(a)(2)]. If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance, all counsel must agree and choose which counsel will give notice. That counsel must 1) email Dept 40 by 8:30 a.m. on the day of the hearing (smcdept40@lacourt.org) with a copy to the other party(ies) and state that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling, and 2) serve notice of the ruling on all parties. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no email is necessary and all parties should appear at the hearing in person or by Court Call. 

Case Number: 24STCV08572    Hearing Date: September 12, 2024    Dept: 40

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 40

I. Background

A. Pleadings

On April 4, 2024, Plaintiff Scott Scaife (Scaife) filed a Complaint against Defendants General Motors LLC (GM) and Does 1 through 10 (collectively, Defendants) alleging causes of action for breach of warranty under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, and fraudulent inducement. On or about May 25, 2019, Scaife purchased a 2019 Chevrolet Silverado. He alleges that defects and issues, including with the vehicle’s transmission and engine, have arisen and that GM has failed to fulfill its warranty obligations. Scaife alleges that said defects and nonconformities substantially impair the use, value and safety of the vehicle.

B. Motion Before the Court

On May 6, GM’s Counsel filed a declaration stating that they had not yet been able to meet and confer with Scaife’s counsel. Counsel met and conferred on June 4, 2024, but were unable to reach a resolution. On June 4, 2024, GM filed this demurrer to the complaint.

On August 29, 2024, Scaife filed a First Amended Complaint (FAC). Proof of service shows that the FAC was served on GM on August 29, 2024 via e-mail.

No answers, oppositions, or replies are on file with the Court.

II. Motion

A. Legal Standard

“A party may amend its pleading once without leave of the court at any time before the answer, demurrer, or motion to strike is filed, or after a demurrer or motion to strike is filed but before the demurrer or motion to strike is heard if the amended pleading is filed and served no later than the date for filing an opposition to the demurrer or motion to strike. A party may amend the pleading after the date for filing an opposition to the demurrer or motion to strike, upon stipulation by the parties.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 472, subd. (a).) “All papers opposing a motion so noticed shall be filed with the court and a copy served on each party at least nine court days … before the hearing.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1005, subd. (b).) “[T]he filing of an amended complaint moots a motion directed to a prior complaint.” (JKC3H8 v. Colton (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 468, 477; see also Sylmar Air Conditioning v. Pueblo Contracting Services, Inc. (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1049, 1054 [“The filing of [a] first amended complaint render[s] [a movant’s] demurrer moot since “‘an amendatory pleading supersedes the original one, which ceases to perform any function as a pleading”’” (citations omitted)].) Accordingly, a “demurrer [directed to the original pleading] should [be] taken off calendar” when an amended complaint is filed. (People ex rel. Strathmann v. Acacia Research Corp. (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 487, 506.)

However, this right is limited to the amendment of a complaint initiating an action into a first amended complaint; otherwise stated, a party cannot amend an already amended complaint as a matter of course even though a demurrer has been directed to the operative and already amended pleading. (Hedwall v. PCMV, LLC (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 564, 572-579 [holding, as a matter of first impression, that a party’s right to amend a pleading as a matter of course under Code of Civil Procedure section 472, subdivision (a) is limited to the original pleading commencing the action].) Further, one defendant’s filing of an answer did not divest the plaintiff of the right to amend the complaint with respect to the causes of action brought against other demurring defendants. (Barton v. Kahn (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 1216, 1219-1221.) 

D. Analysis

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 472, subdivision (a), Scaife was entitled to, as a matter of right, file a FAC as of August 29, 2024, nine court days prior to this hearing. 

Scaife filed the FAC on August 29, 2024. Thus, Scaife’s filing the FAC renders the subject demurrer moot. (See CCP § 472 subd. (a); JKC3H8, supra, 221 Cal.App.4th at 477.) 

III. Conclusion

Defendant General Motors LLC’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint is OFF CALENDAR as MOOT.