Judge: Joseph Lipner, Case: 23STCV24397, Date: 2025-05-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV24397    Hearing Date: May 1, 2025    Dept: 72

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

DEPARTMENT 72

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Walter Lewis Moore (“Plaintiff”) moves for leave to file a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) against Defendant General Motors LLC (“Defendant”).

The Court GRANTS the motion for leave to amend.

The Court CONTINUES trial in this matter from May 27, 2025 to December 15, 2025 at 9:30.  The Final Status Conference shall be continued to December 5, 2025 at 8:30 a.m.  The discovery cut-off date shall be based on the new trial date.

Background

This is a Song-Beverly action arising out of Plaintiff’s purchase of an allegedly defective vehicle that was manufactured by Defendant. The subject vehicle was purchased used and did not come with a new car warranty.

Plaintiff filed this action on October 6, 2023, raising claims for (1) violation of Civil Code, section 1793.2, subd. (d); (2) violation of Civil Code, section 1793.2, subd. (b); (3) violation of Civil Code, section 1793.2, subd. (a)(3); and (4) breach of the implied warranty of merchantability under Civil Code, sections 1791.1 and 1794.

On April 7, 2025, Plaintiff moved for leave to amend. Defendant filed an opposition and Plaintiff filed a reply.

Legal Standard

A complainant may obtain leave from the trial court to amend their pleading beyond the number of amendments allowed under Code of Civil Procedure section 472 (a) by filing a noticed motion. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324.) The motion must be accompanied by a declaration stating: (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) why the request was not made earlier.¿(Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324 (b).)

“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 of any pleading or pretrial conference order.”¿(Code Civ. Proc., § 576.) In the absence of a showing of prejudice from the opposing side, the trial court ordinarily lacks discretion to deny a motion to amend a pleading. (Honig v. Financial Corp. of America (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 960, 965.)

Discussion

On October 31, 2024, the California Supreme Court overturned Jensen v. BMW of North America, Inc. (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 112, which had previously held that a vehicle purchased with an unexpired manufacturer’s new car warranty was a new motor vehicle under the Song-Beverly Act. (Rodriguez v. FCA US LLC (2024) 17 Cal.5th 189, 196.) Under Rodriguez, which is now the law, such a vehicle does not qualify as a “motor vehicle sold with a manufacturer’s new car warranty” under Civil Code, section 1793.22, subd. (e)(2) unless the new car warranty was issued with the sale. (Ibid.)

Because Plaintiff’s vehicle was purchased used and did not have a new car warranty issued with the sale, Rodriguez would extinguish Plaintiff’s claims under the Song-Beverly Act.

            Plaintiff seeks to add a fifth cause of action for violation of the federal Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act and a sixth cause of action for violation of the Uniform Commercial Code.

            Admittedly, Plaintiff had knowledge of all of the facts giving rise to these claims at the time that this case was filed, because they are nearly the same facts. However, it is also true that the legal landscape has recently changed.

            Defendant objects that Plaintiff has unduly delayed in raising the new claims. This case was filed over 18 months ago and trial is currently set for May 27, 2025. Defendant would need to conduct discovery regarding the new claims, including the differing measures of damages, as well as the elements of notice to the manufacturer and reliance on warranty under the UCC.

            Plaintiff is amenable to continuing the trial date and extending the discovery cut-off deadline if Defendant wishes to conduct further discovery. This would resolve the prejudice to Defendant, and is comparatively a far less harsh outcome than the extinguishment of Plaintiff’s claims. In light of the easily mitigable nature of any prejudice to Defendant, the Court determines that leave to amend is proper.

            The Court grants the motion for leave to amend.