Judge: Christopher K. Lui, Case: 23STCV18999, Date: 2025-03-04 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV18999 Hearing Date: March 4, 2025 Dept: 76
Plaintiff alleges
that Defendant failed to repair the subject vehicle to conform to applicable
warranties.
Plaintiff moves for leave to file a
First Amended Complaint.
TENTATIVE RULING
Plaintiff Wesley Jackson’s motion
for leave to file a first amended complaint is GRANTED. Plaintiff is to file a
stand-alone copy of the First Amended Complaint today, which is deemed served
as of the date of this order.
ANALYSIS
Motion For Leave To File Amended Complaint
Discussion
Plaintiff moves for leave to file a
First Amended Complaint to add a cause of action for violation of the
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act—15 U.S.C. § 2301-2312, following the Supreme Court’s
ruling in Rodriguez v. FCA US, LLC, No. S274625, 2024 WL 4631069 (Cal.
Oct. 31, 2024) holding that a used vehicle purchased with an unexpired
manufacturer's new car warranty is not a new motor vehicle under Song-Beverly
Consumer Warranty Act unless a warranty was issued with the sale.
Cal. Rules of Court Rule 3.1324(a)
& (b) states:
(a) Contents of motion 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.
(b) Supporting declaration A separate declaration must accompany the motion and
must specify:
(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 reasons why the
request for amendment was not made earlier.
(Cal. Rules of Court, 3.1324(a) & (b).)
The motion
sets forth the proposed addition to be a fifth cause of action for violation of
the Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act (15 U.S.C. § 2301-2312). Although the
Declaration of Armig Khodanian does not strictly comply with Rule 3.1324(b),
the Court infers that Plaintiff did not assert the Magnuson-Moss claim prior to
the Rodriguez decision because the Song-Beverly Act affords consumers
greater protection with regard to defective vehicles than Magnuson-Moss.
“Leave to amend is in general required to be
liberally granted (citation omitted), provided there is no statute of
limitations concern. Leave to amend may be denied if there is prejudice to the
opposing party, such as delay in trial, loss of critical evidence, or added
costs of preparation. (Citation omitted.)”
(Kolani v. Gluska (1998) 64
Cal.App.4th 402.) Where an additional theory of liability is proposed against an existing
defendant, this is not prejudice which would justify the denial of leave to amend. (See
Hirsa v. Superior Court
(1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 486, 490. See also Atkinson
v. Elk Corp. (2003) 109
Cal.App.4th 739, 761: “[I]t is irrelevant that new
legal theories are introduced as long as the proposed amendments 'relate to the
same general set of facts.' [Citation.]" (Citation omitted.))
Because Plaintiff is not adding any new facts,
there does not appear to be a significant expansion of the case in advance of
trial.
Here, Defendant has not demonstrated
prejudice, and only argues that Plaintiff’s counsel made a tactical blunder in
not asserting a Magnuson-Moss claim earlier. However, given that Rodriguez
definitively cuts off a remedy for a class of used vehicle purchasers, the
Court finds that the liberal policy of leave to amend should be followed,
especially where the underlying facts to be tried remain unchanged.
The motion for leave to file a
first amended complaint is GRANTED. Plaintiff is to file a stand-alone copy of
the First Amended Complaint today, which is deemed served as of the date of
this order.