Judge: John J. Kralik, Case: 23BBCV02837, Date: 2025-05-23 Tentative Ruling
Counsel who wish to submit on the tentative ruling may do so by emailing BURDeptB@lacourt.org
PLEASE WRITE THE CASE NUMBER AND PARTY YOU REPRESENT. YOU MAY ONLY SUBMIT ON BEHALF OF THE PARTY YOU REPRESENT. YOU MAY NOT SUBMIT ON BEHALF OF ANOTHER PARTY. Counsel are directed to cc all other counsel if you are submitting on the tentative ruling.
IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS OR NEED CLARIFICATION ON THE TENTATIVE, YOU MUST APPEAR AND ADDRESS YOUR QUESTIONS TO THE COURT.
IF BOTH SIDES SUBMIT ON THE TENTATIVE RULING, THE TENTATIVE RULING THEN BECOMES THE ORDER OF THE COURT ON THE MOTION DATE AND NO APPEARANCES ARE NECESSARY.
THERE WILL BE NO RESPONSES TO ANY INQUIRIES SUBMITTED THROUGH THIS SITE.
Warning regarding electronic appearances: All software for remote or electronic appearances is subject to malfunction based on system weakness and human error, which can originate from any of the multiple parties participating each morning. The seamless operation of the Court’s electronic appearance software is dependent on numerous inconstant and fluctuating factors that may impact whether you, or other counsel or the Court itself can be heard in a particular case. Not all these factors are within the control of the courtroom staff. For example, at times, the system traps participants in electronic purgatories where they cannot be heard and where the courtroom staff is not aware of their presence. If you call the courtroom, please be respectful of the fact that a court hearing is going on, and that the courtroom staff is doing their best to use an imperfect system. If it is truly important to you to be heard, please show up to the courtroom in the normal way. Parking is free or reasonable in Burbank.
THANK YOU!
Case Number: 23BBCV02837 Hearing Date: May 23, 2025 Dept: NCB
North Central District
LUISA QUINTEROS,
Plaintiff, v.
GENERAL MOTORS, LLC,
Defendant. |
Case No.: 23BBCV02837
Hearing Date: May 23, 2025 [TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION FOR LEAVE OF FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT |
BACKGROUND
A. Allegations
Plaintiff Luisa Quinteros (“Plaintiff”) alleges that on July 27, 2023, she acquired a 2020 Chevrolet Bolt. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant General Motors, LLC (“Defendant” or “GM”) is a warrantor and that it violated the Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act by failing to conform the vehicle to express written warranties within a reasonable number of repair attempts within the warranty period, and by failing to promptly replace the vehicle or make restitution to Plaintiff. Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant breached the implied warranty of merchantability because the vehicle had malfunctions and nonconformities.
The complaint, filed November 30, 2023, alleges causes of action for: (1) violation of the Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act – breach of express warranty; and (2) violation of the Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act – breach of implied warranty.
B. Motion on Calendar
On March 14, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file the first amended complaint (“FAC”).
The Court is not in receipt of an opposition brief.
LEGAL STANDARD
CCP § 473(a)(1) states: “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.”
CRC rule 3.1324 requires a motion seeking leave to amend to include a copy of the proposed pleadings, to identify the amendments, and to be accompanied by a declaration including the following facts:
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 regarding granting leave to amend is usually exercised liberally to permit amendment of pleadings. (Nestle v. Santa Monica (1972) 6 Cal.3d 920, 939.) If a motion to amend is timely made and the granting of the motion will not prejudice the opposing party, it is error to refuse permission to amend. (Morgan v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 527, 530.)
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff moves for leave to file the proposed First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). The FAC (redlined) is attached as Exhibit 1 to the declaration of Neal F. Morrow III.
In support of the motion, Plaintiff provides the declaration of Neal F. Morrow III, counsel for Plaintiff. Mr. Morrow states: “In light of recent legal developments that limit the scope of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, Plaintiff seeks to amend the Complaint to align with the updated legal framework. Specifically, Plaintiff proposes to replace the Song-Beverly cause of action with a Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act claim, thus providing an appropriate remedy for the Subject Vehicle. This amendment accurately reflects the legal basis for Plaintiff’s claims. This change ensures that the complaint accurately addresses the warranty claims related to the SUBJECT VEHICLE. Accordingly, I respectfully request the Court's permission to amend the complaint.” (Morrow Decl., ¶7.) The redlined FAC shows that Plaintiff intends to remove the 1st and 2nd causes of action and to assert a single cause of action for violation of the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act.
Based on the moving papers, the Court grants Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend the complaint. The motion papers address the factors under CRC Rule 3.1324. Further, the motion is not opposed. In addition, the Court recognizes the liberal policy in allowing amendment. “[T]he court's discretion will usually be exercised liberally to permit amendment of the pleadings. The policy favoring amendment is so strong that it is a rare case in which denial of leave to amend can be justified.” (Howard v. County of San Diego (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1422, 1428.)
CONCLUSION AND ORDER
Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a First Amended Complaint is granted. Plaintiff is ordered to electronically file a separate, clean version of the First Amended Complaint with the Court by this date following the hearing on the matter. Defendant’s response will be due under the Code of Civil Procedure after proper service. The Court expresses no opinion regarding the merits of the amended complaint.