Judge: John J. Kralik, Case: 24NNCV06077, Date: 2025-04-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24NNCV06077    Hearing Date: April 11, 2025    Dept: NCB

 

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

North Central District

Department B

 

 

joshua marzwell,

 

                        Plaintiff,

            v.

 

general motors, llc,

 

                        Defendant.

 

Case No.:  24NNCV06077

 

Hearing Date:  April 11, 2025

 

 [TENTATIVE] order RE:

motion for leave of file first amended complaint

 

 

BACKGROUND

A.    Allegations

Plaintiff Joshua Marzwell (“Plaintiff”) alleges that on May 7, 2022, he acquired a 2022 GMC Sierra vehicle.   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.  He also alleges that Defendant breached the implied warranty of merchantability because the vehicle had malfunctions and nonconformities. 

The complaint, filed November 25, 2024, 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 February 3, 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.         

            In support of the motion, Plaintiff provides the declaration of Neal F. Morrow, 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 federal 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 sole 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. 

Plaintiff shall give notice of this order.

 

DATED: April 11, 2025                                                         ___________________________

                                                                                          John Kralik

                                                                                          Judge of the Superior Court