Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles – West District  

Beverly Hills Courthouse / Department 205 

 

 

 

BACKGROUND 

 

This is a lemon law case.  Plaintiff Erick Escobar bought a new 2023 Genesis GV79 (the “Car”).  During the warranty period, the Car developed defects, including but not limited to slip differential and electrical malfunctions.   

On August 8, 2023, Plaintiff filed the instant action, naming Hyundai Motor America (“Hyundai America”) as a defendant in this matter under the belief that it manufactured and/or distributed the Car.  (Ouziel Decl. ¶5.)  Hyundai America filed its Answer on September 14, 2023, claiming it is not a proper party.  (See Answer, Fifteenth Affirmative Defense.)  Subsequently, Plaintiff learned that Genesis Motor America LLC (“Genesis America”) is the actual manufacturer or distributor of the Car.  (Id. ¶¶ 8-11.)   

Plaintiff now seeks leave to amend its complaint to substitute Genesis America as the defendant in this case.  No opposition was filed as of the posting of this tentative ruling.       

LEGAL STANDARD 

CCP § 473(a)(1), provides, in relevant part: “The court may, in furtherance of justice, and on any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading or proceeding 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; and may, upon like terms, enlarge the time for answer or demurrer.¿ The court may likewise, in its discretion, 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.”¿ 

Under California Rules of Court Rule, rule 3.1324, subdivision (a),¿a motion to amend a pleading shall:¿ 

(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.¿¿ 

¿ 

In addition, under California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324, subdivision (b),¿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.¿ 

¿¿ 

The Court’s discretion to grant leave “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.)¿ Ordinarily, the Court will not consider the validity of the proposed amended pleading in ruling on a motion for leave since grounds for a demurrer or motion to strike are premature.¿¿The Court, however, does have discretion to deny leave to amend where a proposed amendment fails to state a valid cause of action as a matter of law and the defect cannot be cured by further amendment.¿ (See¿California Casualty General Ins. Co. v. Superior Court¿(1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 274, 281 (overruled on other grounds by¿Kransco v. American Empire Surplus Lines Ins. Co.¿(2000) 23 Cal.4th 390).)¿¿ 

DISCUSSION 

Plaintiff’s declaration in support of his motion for leave to amend satisfies the requirements under CRC Rule 3.1324.  Plaintiff identifies the proposed amendment and its effect, specifies when the facts giving rise to the amended allegation were discovered, and¿provides the reasons why the request for amendment was not made earlier.  (See, e.g., Ouziel Decl. ¶¶8-11, 15.)    

Plaintiff’s proposed amendment seeks to substitute Gensis America for Hyundai America as Hyundai America denies it is the proper defendant in this case.  Genesis America will not be prejudiced by the amendment since there have been no hearings or discovery conducted in this matter, and trial has not been set.  (Ouziel Decl. ¶12.)  The Court has only scheduled an initial Case Management Conference for February 2, 2024.  (Id.)    

Given the liberal policy favoring amendments and the absence of any opposition to the request for leave to amend, the Court grants the motion for leave to amend. 

 

CONCLUSION 

Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to amend complaint.   

 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 

DATED: February 2, 2024         ___________________________ 

Edward B. Moreton, Jr. 

Judge of the Superior Court