Judge: Gary I. Micon, Case: 22CHCV00488, Date: 2024-07-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22CHCV00488    Hearing Date: July 25, 2024    Dept: F43

Dept. F43

Date: 7-25-24

Case #22CHCV00488, John Pule Rodriguez, et. al. vs. Ford Motor Company, et al.

Trial Date: 6-16-25

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiffs John Pule Rodriguez and Juan Pule Lopez

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant Ford Motor Company

RELIEF REQUESTED

Plaintiffs request leave to file a First Amended Complaint

RULING: Motion for leave to amend is granted.

SUMMARY OF ACTION

On July 25, 2023, Plaintiffs John Pule Rodriguez and Juan Pule Lopez (Plaintiffs) filed their original complaint in this Lemon Law case. Plaintiffs’ original complaint had two Song-Beverly Act causes of action against Defendant Ford Motor Company and one cause of action for negligent repair against Defendant Perry Ford of Santa Barbara.

Plaintiffs represent in their motion that substantial discovery has not been completed at this point. The trial is not until June 16, 2025.

On May 3, 2024, prior to a date for trial being set, Plaintiffs filed this motion for leave to file a first amended complaint (FAC). Plaintiffs seek to add a cause of action for fraudulent inducement-concealment against Defendant Ford Motor Company (Ford) to their complaint, as well as related allegations. Plaintiffs also seek to add a prayer for punitive damages.

Ford opposes Plaintiffs’ motion, arguing that the amended complaint is futile and flawed. Ford also argues that allowing Plaintiffs to amend their complaint would be prejudicial to Ford. Finally, Ford argues that Plaintiffs’ motion does not comport with Cal. Rule of Court Rule 3.1324.

Plaintiffs argue in their reply that Ford fails to establish prejudice beyond merely defending against a new claim. Next, Plaintiffs argue that Ford’s timeliness argument lacks merit. Plaintiffs also argue that Ford’s challenge to the merits of Plaintiffs’ proposed amended complaint is premature and would be better left to a demurrer.

Defendant’s Request for Judicial Notice: Ford has requested that the Court take judicial of lemon law complaints filed in other jurisdictions. The Court will take judicial notice of these documents, but only as to their existence, not for the truth of any matter asserted therein.

ANALYSIS

Courts are authorized, in their discretion, to “allow, upon any terms as may be just, an amendment to any pleading or proceeding in other particulars . . .” (CCP § 473(a)(1).) CCP § 576, likewise, provides that “any judge, at any time before or after commencement of trial, in the furtherance of justice, and upon such terms as may be proper, may allow the amendment to any pleading . . .” (CCP § 576.) The determination of whether to grant leave to file an amended pleading rests in the court’s sound discretion.

Leave to amend is to be liberally granted at any stage in the proceedings, up to and including trial. (Magpali v. Farmers Group, Inc. (1986) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 487; see also County of Sanitation Dist. No. 2 of Los Angeles County v. Kern County (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 1544, 1618 (noting that a plaintiff may be granted amendment even at the time of trial).) To overcome the policy of liberally granting amendments at any stage of litigation, a defendant must show both actual prejudice and inexcusable delay. (Magpali, 48 Cal.App.4th at 487.) Prejudice exists where an amendment to a complaint would result in a delay of trial; loss of critical evidence; added costs of preparation; and increased burden of discovery. (Id. at 486-488.)

Trial in this case is close to eleven months away. Ford would not be prejudiced in that regard if leave to amend were granted. Additionally, Plaintiffs represent that only minimal discovery has been conducted. Ford argues that there was an inexcusable delay in filing this motion because Plaintiffs’ original complaint was filed several months ago. However, complaints can be amended up to and including trial. While a trial date has now been set, there was not even a trial date yet when Plaintiffs filed their motion for leave to amend. There would be little prejudice to Ford if Plaintiffs’ motion is granted.

Ford also attempts to argue the merits of the amendments. However, as Plaintiffs argue in their reply, it is premature to argue the merits of the amendment. That type of challenge is better left for a demurrer. (Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1048; Atkinson v. Elk Corp. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 739, 760 [“the better course of action would have been to allow [plaintiff] to amend the complaint and then let the parties test its legal sufficiency in other appropriate proceedings.”].) Plaintiffs also argue that they have sufficiently pleaded a cause of action for fraudulent inducement-concealment. The Court will leave the sufficiency of this cause of action for future proceedings.

Finally, Ford argues that Plaintiffs have not complied with the requirements of Cal. Rules of Court Rule 3.1324(b) because the declaration submitted with Plaintiffs’ motion does not say when they discovered the facts giving rise to the amended allegations. (CRC Rule 3.1324(b)(3).) Ford also argues that Plaintiffs have failed to satisfy the fourth prong of that rule, which requires the declaration to state the reasons why the request for amendment was not made earlier. (CRC Rule 3.1324(b)(4).)

Plaintiffs do not address this argument in their reply. However, the attorney declaration submitted with Plaintiffs’ motion states that “During the course of litigation, my firm has discovered the widespread nature of the 10R80 transmission defect and sufficient facts to support allegations regarding Ford’s presale knowledge and concealment of the defect.” (Lopez Decl., ¶ 6.) This appears to fulfill the third prong because it indicates that Plaintiffs did not discover the facts giving rise to the amended allegations until after the initial complaint was filed. It should also satisfy the fourth prong because Plaintiffs did not discover the information for these allegations until recently. This paragraph from the Lopez Declaration is sufficient to satisfy the requirements of CRC Rule 3.1324(b).

There is a policy of liberally granting leave to amend. Because Ford has been unable to show prejudice or inexcusable delay, and because trial is close to eleven months away, the Court grants Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a first amended complaint.

Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a first amended complaint is granted. The proposed First Amended Complaint filed with Plaintiffs’ motion is deemed filed.

Moving party to give notice.

Dept. F43

Date: 7-25-24

Case #22CHCV00488, RSG Foods, LLC, et al. vs. T.H. Investments, LLC

Trial Date: N/A

MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiffs RSG Foods, LLC, Neal Scott, and Haydee Scott

RESPONDING PARTY: No response has been filed.

RELIEF REQUESTED

For the Court to enforce the settlement between the parties and enter judgment.

RULING: Motion to enforce settlement is granted.

SUMMARY OF ACTION

Plaintiffs RSG Foods, LLC, Neal Scott, and Haydee Scott (Plaintiffs) have filed a motion to enforce settlement pursuant to CCP § 664.6. Plaintiff filed this motion because Defendant TH Investments, LLC (Defendant) has not complied with the terms of a written settlement agreement made between the parties that was entered into on March 21, 2024.

Plaintiffs allege that Defendant has breached the settlement agreement by failing to timely repair all leaks in the roof of the premises within 60 days from March 17, 2024, and shall be responsible for any resulting damage to the premises from future additional roof leaks that may arise until the expiration of the lease. (Stelnick Decl., Ex. 1, pp. 2-3.)

ANALYSIS

CCP § 664.6 provides that “If parties to pending litigation stipulate, in a writing signed by the parties outside the presence of the court or orally before the court, for settlement of the case, or part thereof, the court, upon motion, may enter judgment pursuant to the terms of the settlement. If requested by the parties, the court may retain jurisdiction over the parties to enforce the settlement until performance in full of the terms of the settlement.”

When considering a CCP § 664.6 motion, “the trial court must determine whether the parties entered into a valid and binding settlement of all or part of the case. In making this determination, trial judges, in the sound exercise of their discretion, may receive oral testimony or may determine the motion upon declarations alone.” (Corkland v. Boscoe (1984) 156 Cal.App.3d 989, 994; Fiore v. Alvord (1985) 182 Cal.App.3d 561, 565.)

Plaintiffs have made this motion pursuant to CCP § 664.6. The parties stipulated to the settlement of this case. The Court, by virtue of Plaintiffs filing this motion, may enter judgment pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement. Additionally, the agreement between the parties allowed the Court to retain jurisdiction over the parties in order to enforce the settlement.

Plaintiffs provided a declaration from their attorney with only the settlement agreement attached as an exhibit. The declaration claims that Plaintiffs’ attorney has personal knowledge that Defendant has failed to make any repairs to the roof of the premises as of May 22, 2024. (Stelnick Decl., ¶¶ 3-4.) There are no declarations from Plaintiffs themselves indicating that the roof has not been repaired. The Court may request a further evidentiary showing by either Plaintiffs’ counsel or Plaintiffs themselves.

Plaintiffs’ motion to enforce settlement is granted pending a further evidentiary showing.

Moving party to give notice.