Judge: Brian F. Gasdia, Case: 24NWCV01453, Date: 2025-06-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24NWCV01453    Hearing Date: June 10, 2025    Dept: R

#4

BENAVIDES v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC

CASE NO.:  24NWCV01453

HEARING:  Tuesday, June 10, 2025 at 9:30 a.m.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to file a First Amended Complaint is GRANTED.

The Proposed First Amended Complaint attached as Exhibit 5 to the Declaration of Olga L. Ponce is deemed FILED and SERVED as of the date of the issuance of this Order.

The Court notes that a Notice of Reassignment was filed in this case on May 8, 2025 which states that on June 2, 2025, this action was reassigned to Judge Brian F. Gasdia as an individual, direct calendaring judge for all purposes, including trial, in Dept. R.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant’s Further Responses and Production to Requests for Production of Documents (set one) scheduled for October 22, 2025 in Dept. C. is ADVANCED to today’s date and CONTINUED to Tuesday, August 26, 2025 at 9:30 a.m. in Dept. R. Opposition and Reply papers to be filed and served per Code in accordance with the new hearing date. 

This lemon law action was filed by Plaintiff LUPE BENAVIDES (“Plaintiff”) against Defendant GENERAL MOTORS LLC (“Defendant” or “GM”) and DOES 1 through 10 inclusive on May 8, 2024.  

Plaintiff now moves for an Order for leave to file a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) “in light of new findings and California Supreme Court’s decision in Rodriguez v. FCA US LLC (2024) 17 Cal.5th 189… as well as additional factual allegations in support of Plaintiff’s proposed causes of action.” (Notice 2:6-9.)  Plaintiff seeks to dismiss the current first and third causes of action under Song-Beverly, add new claims for violations of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”), and add further causes of action under the California Uniform Commercial Code and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. Plaintiff argues  

In Opposition, Defendant argues that the Motion should be denied for the following reasons: (1) Plaintiff unjustifiably delayed seeking to add the new causes of action; (2) allowing Plaintiff to add new causes of action at this stage would unfairly prejudice GM and prolong litigation; and (3) any attempt to pursue the new causes of action in Plaintiff’s Proposed FAC would be futile.   

The Court notes that trial is currently scheduled to begin on May 13, 2026.

California recognizes “a general rule of…liberal allowance of amendments…” (Nestle v. City of Santa Monica (1972) 6 Cal.3d 920, 939.) It has also long been recognized that “even if the proposed legal theory is a novel one, ‘the preferable practice would be to permit the amendment and allow the parties to test its legal sufficiency by demurrer, motion for judgment on the pleadings or other appropriate proceedings.” (Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1048.) In light of great liberality employed when ruling on a motion for leave to amend, the court will not normally consider the validity of the proposed amended pleading since grounds for demurrer or motion to strike are premature. Thus, absent prejudice to the opposing party, courts are bound to apply a policy of great liberality in permitting amendments to the complaint “at any stage of the proceedings, up to and including trial.” (emphasis added.) (Atkinson v. Elk Corp. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 739, 761.)

In light of the liberality associated with granting motions for leave to amend up to and including the time of trial, the Court finds that Plaintiff should be afforded the opportunity to make the proposed amendments. Defendant maintains the ability to attack Plaintiff’s pleading on the merits via motion practice procedures (e.g., demurrer or motion for summary judgment).

The Motion is GRANTED.