Judge: Bruce G. Iwasaki, Case: 24STCV00830, Date: 2025-04-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV00830    Hearing Date: April 25, 2025    Dept: 58

Judge Bruce G. Iwasaki

Hearing Date:             April 25, 2025

Case Name:                Felix v. General Motor, LLC

Case No.:                    24STCV00830

Matter:                        Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Complaint

Moving Party:             Plaintiff Mariana Felix and Maria Hess

Opposing Party:          Defendant General Motors, LLC

            This matter was commenced as a Song-Beverly action. On January 11, 2024, Plaintiffs Mariana Felix and Maria Hess filed a Complaint alleging causes of action for breach of express warranty and breach of implied warranty.      

Then, on April 1, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a First Amended Complaint. Defendant filed an opposition.

The motion for leave to file a First Amended Complaint is granted, although subject to discussion at the hearing.

Legal Standard

            The court may, in furtherance of justice, allow a party to amend any pleading upon any terms as may be proper. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 473, subd. (a), 576.) Courts liberally grant leave to amend based on a strong policy favoring resolution of all disputes between parties in the same case. (Nestle v. Santa Monica (1972) 6 Cal.3d 920, 939; Morgan v. Superior Court (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 527, 530.) Thus, requests for leave to amend generally will be granted unless the party seeking to amend has been dilatory in bringing the proposed amendment, and the delay will cause prejudice to the opposing party if leave to amend is permitted. (Hirsa v. Superior Court (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 486, 490; see also Armenta ex rel. City of Burbank (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 636, 642 [“instances justifying the court’s denial of leave to amend are rare.”].)  Absent prejudice, delay alone is insufficient to deny leave to amend. (Higgins v. Del Faro (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 558, 564-565.)

A party requesting leave to amend must state what allegations in the previous pleading are proposed to be deleted and added, as well as specify where, by page, paragraph, and line number, the changes are located. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(a)(1)-(3).) The moving party must also attach the proposed amended pleading with a declaration by counsel, describing (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) why the request was not made earlier. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(b)(1)-(4).) 

Discussion

            Plaintiffs now move for leave to file a First Amended Complaint. Specifically, Plaintiffs seek to add statutory claims under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and the Uniform Commercial Code. Plaintiffs argues that the amendment was necessitated by a change in law brought on by Rodriguez v. FCA US LLC (2024) 17 Cal.5th 189.

In opposition, Defendant argues that Plaintiffs unduly delayed in bringing this amendment because there is no justification for waiting to bring a claim that Plaintiff could brought at the time of filing the Complaint.

Defendant argues that “[l]etting Plaintiffs add this cause of action at this stage would “open[ ] up an entirely new field of inquiry without any satisfactory explanation as to why this major change in point of attack had not been made” at an earlier stage, when Plaintiffs first learned of the facts and allegations supporting this additional cause of action. (Estate of Murphy v. Gulf Insurance Co., 82 Cal. App. 3d 304, 311 (1978).)” (Opp., 7:12-17.) Notably, however, in the case of Estate of Murphy, the plaintiff sought to amend after the first day of trial. Here, trial is still more than a year away.  

Defendant also argues it will suffer prejudice if the amendment is permitted because Plaintiffs originally filed this lawsuit on January 11, 2024, and trial is now set for June 8, 2026; in the time this case has been pending, the parties have engaged in discovery focused on Plaintiffs’ Song-Beverly claims. With the amendment, Defendant will need to undertake specific discovery on the new claims. (Opp., 9:1-19.)

While Plaintiffs’ excuse for delaying in seeking to amend is admittedly weak, the law favors resolution of all Plaintiffs’ claims. Moreover, under the circumstances here, undue delay alone is insufficient to deny leave to amend absent a showing of prejudice. Being forced to undertake further discovery on these new claims is inconvenient but not prejudicial to Defendants’ ability to defend itself. Further, it is premature to suggest that trial must be continued where it is not set until June 2026.

            Lastly, Defendant argues that Plaintiffs’ new claims are not viable. However, a motion for leave is generally not the appropriate vehicle to substantively challenge a pleading. (See e.g., California Casualty General Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 274, 280-81 [disapproved on other grounds].)

            The Court will inquire about why Song-Beverly claims remain, and why they should not be dismissed.

Conclusion

            Accordingly, the Court grants leave to Plaintiff to file the First Amended Complaint. Plaintiff is ordered to file the First Amended Complaint – probably without the Song-Beverly claims – within three court days.