Judge: Armen Tamzarian, Case: 22STCV12610, Date: 2023-11-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV12610    Hearing Date: November 27, 2023    Dept: 52

Plaintiffs Carlos Popoca Cortes and
Esmeralda Castillo Lopez’s Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint

Plaintiffs Carlos Popoca Cortes and
Esmeralda Castillo Lopez move for leave to file a first amended complaint to
assert a new cause of action for breach of express warranty. 

Courts have discretion to permit an
amendment to any pleading “in furtherance of justice, and on any terms as may
be proper.” (CCP § 473(a)(1).)  “This
discretion should be exercised liberally in favor of amendments, for judicial
policy favors resolution of all disputed matters in the same lawsuit.”  (Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court
(1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1047.) 
Courts exercise their discretion “liberally to permit amendment,” and
“[t]he policy favoring amendment is so strong that it is a rare case in which
denial of leave to amend can be justified.” 
(Howard v. County of San Diego (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1422,
1428.) 

Defendant American Honda Motor
Co., Inc. argues plaintiffs unreasonably delayed bringing this motion.  Courts have discretion to deny leave to amend
when (a) the moving party has delayed bringing the proposed amendment; and (b)
the delay in seeking leave to amend will cause prejudice to an opposing party.  (Hirsa
v. Superior Court (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 486, 490.)  Though plaintiffs could have brought this
motion earlier, defendant fails to show sufficient prejudice to overcome the
policy in favor of permitting amendments to pleadings. 

Defendant
argues this amendment will require further discovery.  While the case “has only been focused on the
implied warranty cause of action” (Opp., p. 5), it is unclear that any new discovery
would be required.  The terms of the
express warranty (and its extension) are undisputed.  Adjudicating the merits of the new claim for
breach of express warranty turns primarily on the same evidence as the existing
claim for breach of implied warranty: whether defendant adequately repaired the
vehicle’s air conditioning.  Permitting
this amendment would require at most minimal new discovery.  

Defendant
correctly notes that the discovery cutoff has passed.  But that can be remedied if defendant
successfully moves to reopen discovery. 
To avoid unnecessary litigation, the parties shall meet and confer
regarding reopening discovery relating to plaintiffs’ new cause of action.

            Defendant
also argues plaintiffs’ proposed cause of action for breach of express warranty
should fail on the merits because plaintiffs only presented their vehicle for
one repair attempt related to the air conditioning condenser.  (Opp., pp. 3-4.)  In ruling on a motion for leave to amend,
courts generally do not consider the amended pleading’s merits.  (Atkinson
v. Elk Corp. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 739, 760.)  Even if the court considered the pleading’s
merits, plaintiffs present some evidence in support of the claim for breach of
express warranty.  As the reply brief
notes (Reply, p. 1), the opposition omitted a repair visit related to the
vehicle’s air conditioning on October 29, 2021 (Tran Decl., Ex. B, p. 3).

Plaintiffs Carlos Popoca Cortes and Esmeralda Castillo
Lopez’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint is granted.  Plaintiffs are ordered to file the first
amended complaint (attached to as Exhibit D to the declaration of Thach Tran)
forthwith.