Judge: Cherol J. Nellon, Case: 24STCV00792, Date: 2025-05-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV00792    Hearing Date: May 12, 2025    Dept: 14

#6

Case Background

This is a lemon law case.

On January 11, 2024, Plaintiffs Juan Francisco Mendez and Olivia Figueroa filed their Complaint against Defendant General Motors, LLC.

On April 7, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a First Amended Complaint.

On April 29, 2025, Defendant filed an opposition.

On May 5, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a reply.

Instant Pleading

Plaintiffs move for leave to file a First Amended Complaint (FAC).

Decision

Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a First Amended Complaint is GRANTED. Plaintiffs must file their proposed FAC within 10 days of this order.

Legal Standard

The court may, in furtherance of justice and on any proper terms, allow a party to amend any pleading by adding or striking out the name of any party, or by correcting a mistake in the name of a party, or a mistake in any other respect. (Code Civ. Proc., section 473, subd. (a)(1); Branick v. Downey Savings & Loan Association (2006) 39 Cal.4th 235, 242.) The court may also, in its discretion and after notice to the adverse party, allow, upon any terms as may be just, an amendment to any pleading or proceeding in other particulars; and may upon like terms allow an answer to be made after the time limited by this code. (Code Civ. Proc., section 473, subd. (a)(1); Branick, supra, 39 Cal.4th at 242.) As judicial policy favors resolution of all disputed matters between the parties, leave to amend is generally liberally granted. (See Kolani v. Gluska (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 402, 412.) The court may deny the plaintiff’s leave to amend if there is prejudice to the opposing party, such as delay in trial, loss of critical evidence, or added costs of preparation. (Id.) 

A motion to amend a pleading before trial must (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 Court, rule 3.1324(a).) A separate supporting declaration specifying (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 reason why the request for amendment was not made earlier must accompany the motion. (Id., rule 3.1324(b).) 

Discussion

Plaintiffs move for leave to file a First Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs’ counsel testifies that the proposed amendment will add a cause of action under the Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act. (Khodanian Decl., ¶3.) Plaintiffs make the amendment in response to the California Supreme Court’s decision in Rodriguez v. FCA US, LLC (2024) 17 Cal.5th 189 (Rodriguez), which precludes Plaintiffs from seeking recovery under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. (Id.) Prior to the ruling, Plaintiffs’ counsel did not anticipate the need to seek leave to amend earlier. (Id.)

The Court finds that Plaintiffs complied with Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324(b). In light of the liberal policy favoring the granting motions for leave to amend pleadings, Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file an FAC is GRANTED.

In opposition, Defendant argues that Plaintiffs unjustifiably delayed filing an amended complaint because they could have alleged the Magnusson-Moss cause of action in the original Complaint. However, the fact that Plaintiffs could have included the cause of action in the original Complaint does not mean they unreasonably delayed seeking leave to amend. Rather, Plaintiffs were unaware that they lacked standing to sue under the Song-Beverly Act before the decision in Rodriguez and immediately sought leave to amend once the decision came down. The Court finds that Plaintiffs did not delay moving for leave to amend. Although Defendant argues it would suffer prejudice because it would need to conduct additional discovery regarding the new cause of action, Defendant fails to explain what additional discovery would be necessary or why the discovery would cause prejudice to Defendant. Defendant also argues the amendment would be futile but fails to explain this contention. To the extent that Defendant challenges the legal viability of the proposed amendment, Defendant is free to raise this argument on demurrer.

Conclusion

Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a First Amended Complaint is GRANTED. Plaintiffs must file their proposed FAC within 10 days of this order.