Judge: Joseph Lipner, Case: 24STCV02413, Date: 2025-05-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV02413    Hearing Date: May 27, 2025    Dept: 72

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

DEPARTMENT 72

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Gilbert Zuniga moves for leave to file a First Amended Complaint.

The Motion is GRANTED.  Plaintiff is ordered to file the proposed First Amended Complaint within ten (10) days of the Court’s order.

Background

            On January 30, 2024, Plaintiff Gilbert Zuniga (“Plaintiff” or “Zuniga”) filed an action against Defendant General Motors LLC (“Defendant” or “GM”) and Does 1 through 10 for (1) violation of Civil Code section 1793.2, subdivision (d), (2) violation of Civil Code section 1793.2, subdivision (b), (3) violation of Civil Code section 1793.2, subdivision (A)(3), and (4) breach of implied warranty of merchantability, Civil Code sections 1791.1 and 1794.  Plaintiff alleges that, after his purchase of a 2018 GMC Sierra 1500 (“Vehicle”) on October 16, 2020, the Vehicle began to manifest defects covered by Defendant’s express written warranties.  These defects substantially impaired the use, value, and/or safety of the Vehicle.  Defendant failed to repair the Vehicle after a reasonable number of opportunities and failed to replace it.  Plaintiff revoked acceptance of the Vehicle and filed the instant action.  Defendant filed an Answer on March 6, 2024.

            On April 23, 2025, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint (“Motion”).  Defendant filed an Opposition on May 13, 2025, and Plaintiff filed a Reply on May 19, 2025.

Legal Standard

Leave to amend is permitted under Code of Civil Procedure sections 473, subdivision (a), and 576.  The policy favoring amendment and resolving all matters in the same dispute is “so strong that it is a rare case in which denial of leave to amend can be justified. [Citation.]”  (Howard v. County of San Diego (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1422.)  Notwithstanding the “policy of great liberality in permitting amendments to the complaint at any stage of the proceedings, up to and including trial [citations], this policy should be applied only ‘where no prejudice is shown to the adverse party . . . .’ [citation].  A different result is indicated ‘where inexcusable delay and probable prejudice to the opposing party’ is shown. [Citation].”  (Magpali v. Farmers Group (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 487.

A motion for leave to amend a pleading must also comply with the procedural requirements of California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324, which requires a supporting declaration to set forth explicitly what allegations are to be added and where, and explicitly stating what new evidence was discovered warranting the amendment and why the amendment was not made earlier.  The motion must also include (1) a copy of the proposed and numbered amendment, (2) specifications by reference to pages and lines the allegations that would be deleted and added, and (3) a declaration specifying the effect, necessity and propriety of the amendments, date of discovery and reasons for delay.  (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(a), (b).)

Discussion

            Plaintiff moves for leave to file a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”).  Plaintiff filed the operative Complaint on January 30, 2024, asserting warranty violations under California Code of Civil Procedure sections 1791.1, 1793.2, and 1794.  On October 31, 2024, the California Supreme Court, in Rodriguez v. FCA US, LLC (2024) 17 Cal.5th 189, overturned Jensen v. BMW of North America, Inc., 35 Cal. App. 4th 112 (1995), which was applicable at the time the lawsuit was initiated.  (Khodanian Decl., ¶¶ 3-4.)  The Supreme Court held that “a motor vehicle purchased with an unexpired manufacturer's new car warranty does not qualify as a ‘motor vehicle sold with a manufacturer’s new car warranty’ under [the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act]’s definition of ‘new motor vehicle’ unless the new car warranty was issued with the sale.”  (Rodriguez, 17 Cal.5th at 196.)  Given that Plaintiff purchased a used vehicle without a new car warranty, Plaintiff is now precluded from recovery.  (Khodanian Decl., ¶¶ 3-4.)  Thus, Plaintiff asserts that is necessary and proper to amend the statutory grounds for the claimed recovery and add statutory claims under federal law, 15 U.S.C. § 2301-2312, et seq. and the Uniform Commercial Code.  Defendant will not suffer any prejudice from the addition of these claims as the FAC will not add any new facts or damages that would require additional discovery; on the contrary, Plaintiff could lose his right to a remedy if the Motion is denied.  Plaintiff also states that he met and conferred with Defendant to stipulate to the amendment; however, Defendant refused without identifying any prejudice.  (Khodanian Decl., ¶¶ 5-6, 8, Ex. A.)  Defendant sent a letter requesting that Plaintiff voluntarily dismiss all claims with prejudice.  (Id. at ¶ 7, Ex. B.)

            A copy of the proposed FAC is attached.  (Khodanian Decl., ¶ 10, Ex. C.)  Plaintiff identifies the changes that are to be made through the FAC, which consist of the addition of the Fifth Cause of Action for Violation of the Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act (15 U.S.C. § 2301-2312) and Sixth Cause of Action for Violation of the Uniform Commercial Code.

            Defendant opposes the Motion on the grounds of unjustifiable delay, prejudice to Defendant, and futility.  In his Reply, Plaintiff argues that he did not anticipate having to amend the Complaint because at the time he filed the action, the controlling case, Jensen v. BMW of North America, Inc., held that used vehicles could be covered under the Song-Beverly Act.  (Reply, p. 2.)  Thus, there was no need for the Magnuson-Moss Warranty cause of action.  (Ibid.)  Moreover, the new causes of action are based on the same harm and damages as the original Complaint and the same legal theory; thus, there is no need for additional discovery.  (Id. at p. 3.)  Plaintiff points out that discovery is still ongoing.  (Id. at p. 3.)  Plaintiff also reiterates that Defendant would not be prejudiced by the amendment; however, Plaintiff could lose his right to a remedy if the Court denied the Motion.  (Ibid.)

The Court finds that Plaintiff has complied with all requirements such that the Court should grant leave to amend.  Plaintiff explains his reasoning for not including the federal claim in the original Complaint and demonstrates that he filed the instant Motion soon after the California Supreme Court’s most recent decision regarding his standing to sue under the Song-Beverly Act.  In Opposition, Defendant does not present sufficient evidence to show that Plaintiff unjustifiably delayed the Motion or how amendment would prejudice Defendant.  Defendant also challenges the legal viability of the proposed amendment; however, a demurrer would be the appropriate means to challenge the allegations in the FAC.

Given Plaintiff’s compliance with the requirements of the instant Motion and the liberal policy in permitting amendments at any stage of proceedings, Plaintiff’s Motion is GRANTED.

Accordingly, Plaintiff Gilbert Zuniga’s Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint is GRANTED.  Plaintiff is ordered to file the proposed First Amended Complaint within ten (10) days of the Court’s order.