Judge: Christian R. Gullon, Case: 22PSCV01792, Date: 2023-09-18 Tentative Ruling

The Court may change tentative rulings at any time. Therefore, attorneys are advised to check this website to determine if any changes or updates have been made to the tentative ruling.

Counsel may submit on the tentative rulings by calling the clerk in Dept. O at 909-802-1126 before 8:30 the morning of the hearing. Submission on the tentative does not bind the court to adopt the tentative ruling at the hearing should the opposing party appear and convince the court of further modification during oral argument.

The Tentative Ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file any further documents relative to the hearing in question. No such filing will be considered by the Court in the absence of permission first obtained following ex-parte application therefore.

Case Number: 22PSCV01792    Hearing Date: September 18, 2023    Dept: O

Tentative Ruling

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT (FAC) is GRANTED.

Background

This is a lemon law case.

On November 14, 2022, Plaintiff David Shakhbazyan filed suit against Defendants MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC (“Mercedes-Benz”); ENVISION WC MB AUTO d/b/a MERCEDES-BENZ OF WEST COVINA (“Envision”) for four causes action (COAs):

On April 3, 2023, Mercedes-Benz filed its answer.

On June 20, 2023, Envision filed its answer.

On August 22, 2023, Plaintiff filed the instant motion.

Legal Standard

The court may, in furtherance of justice and on any proper terms, allow a party to amend any pleading. (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (a)(1); Branick v. Downey Savings & Loan Association (2006) 39 Cal.4th 235, 242.) “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.) “[I]t is irrelevant that new legal theories are introduced as long as the proposed amendments ‘relate to the same general set of facts.’” (Id. at p. 1048, internal citation omitted.)

That said, 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. (Kolani, supra, 64 Cal.App.4th at p. 411.) 

Under California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324, 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).)[1]

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).)[2] 

Discussion

Plaintiff moves for an order granting leave to file a FAC to (1) dismiss against Envision the claims for breach of express and implied warranty; violation of the Song-Beverly Act; and violation of the Uniform Commercial Code, and (2) to add claims against Envision for fraudulent misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract, violation of Bus. & Prof. Code§ 17200, and violation of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act. (Motion p. 1:21-27.)

Plaintiff brings forth the motion on the following grounds: On April 15, 2020, Plaintiff purchased the subject vehicle, which was sold as a “new” vehicle and covered under a full new vehicle express warranty. In fact, Envision submitted to the California DMV an application for the registration of a new vehicle and, likewise, Plaintiff signed an MSRP Sticker Removal Authorization, which only occurs in conjunction with the purchase of a new vehicle. Accordingly, the representations demonstrated that Envision sold a new vehicle. But after the vehicle experienced problems, Plaintiff learned that the three-year warranty was “expired,” leading to Plaintiff filing the instant lawsuit. During the discovery process, evidence came to light that Envision defrauded Plaintiff and other purchasers that vehicles were new when the vehicles were not new. In support of its allegations of fraud, Plaintiff, in addition to other exhibits, provides the Lease Application, which, in a section not previously disclosed to Plaintiff, states the vehicle is, in fact, a "used" vehicle. (See generally Motion pp. 2-3, see also Starr Decl., Exs. 1-4.)

Thus, though the amendment seeks to introduce new legal theories, the proposed amendments relate to the same general set of facts, which minimizes concerns of prejudice and merely “make the original cause[s] of action complete." (Motion p. 4, quoting Higgins v. Del Faro (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 558 565.)

Therefore, abiding by the rule of great liberality in granting a plaintiff leave to amend an original complaint.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the motion is granted.