Judge Christian R. Gullon, Case Number: 24PSCV02662, Date: 2025-04-30 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Christian R. Gullon, Case: 24PSCV02662, Date: 2025-04-30 Tentative Ruling

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT is DENIED due to both unjustifiable delay and prejudice to Defendant; the court requests Defendant file a proposed order.

On August 16, 2024, Plaintiff Leonard J. Juarez filed suit against Defendant General Motors, LLC for SBA violations arising for his July 2024 purchase of a 2020 Chevrolet Bolt.

To date, as of Monday, April 28, 2025, no reply has been filed by Plaintiff.

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.) 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. (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (a); Branick, supra, 39 Cal.4th at 242.) The court may deny the plaintiff’s leave to amend if there is prejudice[1] to the opposing party, such as delay in trial, loss of critical evidence, or added costs of preparation. (Id.) Leave to amend is also properly denied where the proposed amendment is not actionable under substantive law. (Opp. p. 5, citing to Tyco Industries, Inc. v. Superior Court (1985) 164 Cal.App.3d 148.)

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).) 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).

The motion is brief. Plaintiff argues that “In light of the recent legal development, Plaintiff believes there are valid grounds to amend the complaint. As a result, Plaintiff intends to replace the claim under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act with a cause of action under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.” (Motion p. 5.) The declaration of Plaintiff’s counsel is equally devoid of a meaningful reason to satisfy the requirements above. As noted in opposition, the motion is likely made as a result of Rodriguez v. FCA US, LLC (2024) 17 Cal.5th 189. In Rodriguez, the Supreme Court held that “a motor vehicle purchased with an unexpired manufacturer’s new car warranty does not qualify as a ‘motor vehicle sold with a manufacturer’s new car warranty’ under [Song-Beverly]’s definition of ‘new motor vehicle’ unless the new car warranty was issued with the sale.” (17 Cal.5th at 196 (citing Cal. Civ. Code § 1793.22(e)(2))). As a result of Rodriguez, Plaintiff’s SongBeverly claims—which relate to the purchase of a used vehicle in a transaction in which GM did not extend a new car warranty—are no longer viable.

However, as noted in opposition, Plaintiff seeks leave to amend to replace his Song-Beverly claims with an entirely new claim that he could have asserted from the outset but chose not to. Where, as here, the Plaintiff was aware of the facts relevant to the proposed amendment and waited without justification to assert them, leave to amend is appropriately denied. (See e.g., Record v. Reason (1993) 73 Cal. App. 4th 472, 486 (leave to amend was properly denied where the plaintiffs “had knowledge of the circumstances on which they based the amended complaint … almost three years before they sought leave to amend”); see also Roemer v. Retail Credit Co. (1975) 44 Cal. App. 3d 926, 940 (affirming denial of leave to amend and noting that a “long delay in offering the amendment after knowledge of the [relevant] facts could very reasonably be construed by the court to constitute a lack of due diligence”)).

Aside from the element of unjustifiable delay, allowing Plaintiff to 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 Plaintiff first became aware of the facts and allegations supporting this additional cause of action. (Opp. p. 6, citing Estate of Murphy v. Gulf Ins. Co. (1978) 82 Cal.App.3d 304, 311).

Based on the foregoing, considering the unjustifiable delay and the unfair prejudice, Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend is denied.

[1] The court finds minimal prejudice. A trial date has not been set and Defendants have yet to take Plaintiff’s deposition or depose any treating doctors or retained experts. The court agrees with Plaintiff that the amendment ensures that Defendants retain the opportunity to proceed with their existing discovery plan while also affording them time to address the new claims.