Judge: Jon R. Takasugi, Case: 21STCV31060, Date: 2025-01-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV31060    Hearing Date: January 17, 2025    Dept: 17

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend is DENIED, WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 

On 8/23/2021, Plaintiff Filimon Garcia Ramirez (Plaintiff) filed suit against American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (Defendant) alleging: (1) breach of express warranty; (2) breach of implied warranty; (3) breach of Song-Beverly Act section 1793.2; and (4) fraudulent inducement-concealment.

            On 11/1/2024, Plaintiff moved for leave to file a first amended complaint (FAC).

Discussion

            Plaintiff seeks leave to amend to remove paragraphs 17-48, and will amend paragraphs 49-92 of Plaintiff’s Complaint.

            Plaintiff contends that Plaintiff’s original Complaint pertained to a defect in a transmission type not installed in the subject vehicle. As such, Plaintiff’s amendment would remove allegations related to the incorrect transmission type, and would add allegations directed to the defect in the model of transmission with which Plaintiff’s vehicle is actually equipped.

The policy favoring leave to amend is so strong that it is an abuse of discretion to deny an amendment unless the adverse party can show meaningful prejudice. (Atkinson v. Elk Corp. (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 739, 761.)

Here, trial is set 3/17/2025. While Plaintiff contends that Defendant has not yet conducted Plaintiff’s deposition nor a vehicle inspection, Defendant’s opposition indicates that Plaintiff’s deposition was completed on 10/11/2024. Deposition testimony was submitted corroborating this. (Motion, Exh. A.) Moreover, Plaintiff has served discovery defining the transmission defect as a 6-Speed Transmission Defect, to which Defendant already responded. Finally, Defendant already filed its motion for summary adjudication on 11/24/2024.

As such, the Court agrees with Defendant that meaningful prejudice will result if leave were granted. This action was filed in August 2021. Now, in January 2025, Plaintiff is seeking for the first time to amend the compel to name the correct defect, having already conducted discovery on the improperly alleged defect.

More importantly, Plaintiff’s motion does not comply with California Rules of Court 3.1324.

California Rules of Court Rule 3.1324(b) provides that a separate declaration that must accompany a motion for leave to amend 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 pleadings were discovered; (4) The reasons why the request for amendment was not made earlier.

Here, Timothy Lupinek’s declaration does not offer any explanation of when the facts giving rise to the proposed first amended complaint were discovered nor is there any articulation of the reasons why the request for the amendment was not made earlier. Rather, Mr. Lupinek broadly states:

At the time that Plaintiff’s initial complaint was filed, Plaintiff had reason to believe that problems with the transmission were caused by the torque converter lock up clutch, which existed as part of AHM’s 6-speed transmission. However, throughout the course of litigation, it has recently come to light that the Subject Vehicle is equipped with a 9-speed transmission. Specifically, when Plaintiff’s counsel conducted a vin search, they became aware that the Subject Vehicle was equipped with a 9-speed transmission.

            (Lupinek Decl., ¶ 4.)

            Mr. Lupinek offers no details as to when it conducted this VIN search. As such, the Court has no basis for determining whether or not Plaintiff unreasonably delayed in seeking leave to amend. There is reason to believe that he did. For example, Defendant submitted deposition testimony of Plaintiff and Honda of Hollywood which indicates that on 2/15/2022, Honda of Hollywood provided Plaintiff with a repair order clearly indicating the type of transmission equipped in the subject vehicle is a 9-Speed Transmission. This would suggest the Plaintiff knew since at least February 15, 2022 that the Subject Vehicle was equipped with a 9-Speed transmission, not a 6-speed. If this is the case, Plaintiff waited over two years before seeking leave to amend. The uncertainty around these facts runs afoul of CRC Rule 3.1324(b).

            Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend is denied, without prejudice. 

It is so ordered.

Dated:  January    , 2025

   Hon. Jon R. Takasugi
   Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at smcdept17@lacourt.org by 4 p.m. the day prior as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative.  If all parties to a motion submit, the court will adopt this tentative as the final order.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar.  For more information, please contact the court clerk at (213) 633-0517.