Judge: Joseph Lipner, Case: 24STCV02159, Date: 2025-05-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV02159    Hearing Date: May 29, 2025    Dept: 72

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

DEPARTMENT 72

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiffs Jacob Daniel Camarena and Loryn D. Camarena (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) move for leave to file a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) against Defendant General Motors LLC (“Defendant”).

The Court GRANTS the motion for leave to amend. Plaintiff shall file and serve the amended complaint within five days.

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 January 26, 2024, alleging warranty violations in violation of the Song-Beverly Act.

On April 23, 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 Plaintiffs’ 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.

            Plaintiffs seek to add a cause of action for violation of the federal Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act and a cause of action for violation of the Uniform Commercial Code.

            Admittedly, Plaintiffs 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.

            Defendant objects that Plaintiffs have  unduly delayed for over a year in raising the new claims. Defendant argues that it would be prejudiced if leave to amend were granted after such a delay because it would have to conduct discovery on the new claims. Here, however, there is ample time until trial, which is calendared for November 10, 2025. Further, Plaintiffs’ new claims arise out of the same harm and damages – thus, most of the relevant discovery will be fact discovery into the subject vehicle that overlaps with the discovery that Defendant would conduct on the Song-Beverly claims.

In light of the easily mitigable nature of any prejudice to Defendant, the Court determines that leave to amend is proper. The Court is open to considering motions to continue trial if the parties believe that it is necessary.

            The Court grants the motion for leave to amend.